At my most recent post about Secretary Clinton providing full benefits to the GLBT Diplomat Corp, faithful No Quarter reader, Mountaires, had a comment which included the following video from the Rachel Maddow Show. As you know, and as I have mentioned a number of times, Rachel Maddow, and her network, MSNBC, were very blatantly, and obviously, in the tank for Obama (there are too many examples to go into right now – do a search here, or No Quarter, or Goodsearch.com – you will get hits, I promise). That should convey to you just how incredibly serious what she says is – she is a HUGE Obama supporter (or was – who knows now). And what Obama wants to do next should scare the bejesus out of everyone in this country. It is his further dismantling of our Constitution, and our democracy. And what it is staggers the mind:

I have no words for this. Oh, wait – yes I do. For Obama to give this speech in which he is taking away rights GUARANTEED by the Constitution of the United States (right to a speedy trial, to not be held without charges) is criminal.

I was wrong, though. Obama is not another Bush, he is WORSE than Bush. I didn’t think that was possible, but there it is, from his very own lips – he is actively working to take away our rights. This is shocking beyond belief. I can’t wait to hear how the Obama minions will defend THIS.

In Obama’s World-Series-delaying infomercial last week, he stated the need to “rebuild the military.” Rebuild?

Senator Barack Obama originally attracted liberal Democrats to support his candidacy by endorsing the Caucus for Priorities. At the time he said:

First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Back in September, having secured the Democratic nomination, Obama appeared to begin shedding some of his long-held positions. Among changes, he now wanted to increase the size the military. As CNN reported, McCain quickly pointed out the flip-flop.

“Sen. Obama told the extreme left what they wanted to hear during the primary, now he’s trying to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,” McCain responded in Missouri. “My friends, you may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand.”

But not so fast. Maybe Obama’s really talking more literally. He did say “rebuild the military”. Which military? Recall that a short while back on July 2nd, Obama announced:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

First, is he saying that the military is failing? Why else would you not continue to rely upon it for our national security?

And secondly, create a parallel “civilian” military that is “as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded”?

He hasn’t established a need, nor has he been forthcoming on his plans. The comment has been scrubbed from his campaign Web site. As well, the media has covered this up—the video clip exists (above) but I cannot find a single mainstream newspaper that has reported on this.

What is Obama’s Civilian National Security Force? Is it Nazi Brown Shirts? An institutionalized version of ACORN, Public Allies, and some of his cult following? A state version of Saul Alinsky’s disciples?

But, more seriously, as he set out to cut the military, a consistent position until after his July 2nd announcement about creating a “civilian national security force”, does he mean to rebuild the military by creating this parallel Civilian National Security Force?

Charles Lemos writes in NoQuarterUSA on July 20, 2008:

Is he referencing the ATF, FBI, or DEA? Or something new and different say like the Defense of the Revolution Brigades that they have in Cuba and Venezuela where neighbors spy on neighbors? Surely he can’t mean the US Foreign Service and the Peace Corps et al be funded in the billions of dollars. Whatever he is referencing it sounds like a dramatic departure from current practice and current funding. And why did it take the press so long to catch the discrepancy between the speech as delivered and the prepared remarks? Why are the references in the transcript to this deleted or omitted? Should we be worried? He was rather emphatic about it so I doubt that he just got carried away and ad libbed it.

I admit that I do not hang on Obama’s every speech and go through them with the a fine tooth comb but perhaps I should, for the press is not doing its job. It is, apparently, in the business of unadulterated adoration. If he is proposing something new and different, shouldn’t we be asking questions especially since it sounds rather open-ended and, to be frank, worrisome for civil liberties.

Commentors to Lemos’ article asked if this was to be our version of a Republican Guard (Ownaa). Another, Fred C. Dobbs, asks, “Komsomols? Young Pioneers? Spetznatz? Winnie Mandela Football Club? Patrice Lumumba University Marching and Chowder Society? Legion Etrangere?”

Ani next wrote in NoQuarterUSA, Arrogant Thing, You Make Everything…Horrid, on July 22, 2008:

I now understand Senator Obama thinks our military isn’t enough and wants to employ a civilian national security force? Can you say Blackwater? Does this scare anyone else?

Then, RobWarrior shared an example of Obama’s civilian national security force, in NoQuarterUSA, The Case for David Freddoso, on September 20, 2008:

However, [David Freddoso] who wrote a well researched book, made a mistake. He dared to question the chosen one. So when he was scheduled to appear on a Chicago radio show on Monday night, Obama’s minions went to work. The Obama action alert went to the e-mails of his devoted followers and future brown shirt wearing members of his Civilian National Security Force.

Included in the e-mail was the following:

“David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” the email claimed. “And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.”

That’s not just lies, fabrications or embellishments, it’s libel.

Obama’s thugs were instructed to inundate WGN with phone calls, e-mails and anything else to disrupt the Freddoso appearance. Yes, they did the same thing a few weeks ago, when the same show booked Stanley Kurtz, who is one of the few people actually bothering to find out what really happened with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

The show went on and Freddoso made his case. And there wasn’t a hateful word spoken, despite the actions of Obama’s Chicago gangsters. There is not a hate mongering word in Freddoso’s book. Of course, they wouldn’t know that since they haven’t bothered to read it.

Eastan McNeal discussed at NoQuarterUSA in Obama’s Civilian National Security Force in National Horror 101 on September 30, 2008:

It may come to no surprise that a Civilian National Security Force (CNSF) like the one Obama suggests can be and have been proposed or implemented in places like Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea and East Germany. But we live in what is now considered a country that values individual freedom and freedom of choices.

To make this concept even more disturbing, Obama has also called for greater integration between his CNSF and public schools, so that young Americans are better prepared to be active citizens. He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and setting the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students.

“Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously,” he said.

This sounds like coerced patriotism for the lower and middle class. Get out there and volunteer for something, kid, or we’ll have to shut down the library and charge you double for your books. Private schools, like the one Obama’s daughters attend will be inherently exempt, of course. His girls will never be forced to take target practice lessons and patrol the borders of Hyde Park, protecting the locals from moderate low information interlopers who may try to climb the gates for a better look onto how the other half lives. You know – like the One who…. today is running for the right to conscript your kids into his brown shirt urban army.

Soldier4Hillary had a comment about THAT, as did others:

Soldier4Hillary | 2008-09-30 09:20:10 |

I read No Quarter every morning before I leave for my appointments for the day and out of all of the times I have done so this article has affected me the most.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

I am done with the Democratic party. Done. That one quote gives the impression that were incompetent. That quote gives the impression that we are all part of the “failed administration of the last 8 years and should be replaced”.

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set

Is he attempting to state that we have failed to keep out country safe? That we have failed in on our mission? What “national security objectives that have been set where we dropped the ball? This is like a slap in the face. So what happens to us when he gains office now that the Democratic party has basically stated we are no longer needed? We have law enforcement agencies already so what exactly is this “civilian force” that needs to be stronger than our current military and just as strongly funded? No one is going to fight on behalf of us if the Dems win if they are already plotting how to replace us.

I honestly do not know what the future will holds. It used to be worrying about medical treatment and my current medical board I am going through but the more these people talk it seems I may have more to think about.

This plan for a civilian military goes against EVERYTHING I believe in. They need to go and stroll through the halls of Walter Reed and tell them that they see that they haven’t achieved there “national security objectives”. Go to Landstuhl and visit those there and tell them we haven’t achieved our goal. I am disgusted and pissed off. People have sacrificed so many things and not once, not once can Obama open his mouth and say one good goddamn thing we have done. I am tired of reading this type of shit. We volunteer for this. The same way people make the choice to become police officers, firefighters etc etc. I am tired of people looking the other way and letting this shit fly.

Comment by Agust304 | 2008-09-30 23:48:21:

Soldier

You are so right on.

My brother-in-law is an Air Force vet like me. He is republican. My wife is old democrat. My kids are mostly independent in their voting, as am I.

I do not see my choice to reject Obama as anything other than me exercising my right to be a citizen who has an opinion and feelings.

One feeling I have is don’t mess with my kids. One opinion I have is I am not ashamed of my opinion.

Thanks for piping in. I always like your stuff.

Comment by TeakWoodKite | 2008-10-01 00:39:56

What “national security objectives that have been set where we dropped the ball?

That must sting like a slap in the face to all that serve.

What a DumbAss he is, Sargent…

While I normally do not read or quote WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah has also asked about Obama’s Civilian National Security Force. Writing on July 15th he asks:

What does it mean?

If we’re going to create some kind of national force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it’s possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn’t the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.

….

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new “civilian national security force”? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?

The questions are endless.

Yes, the questions are really endless.

As Obama has not been forthcoming in what he means by his “civilian national security force” and by his call to “rebuild the military” one has to look at several of the people he has hired. WordNetDaily writes in Camp Obama in Who is Jamillah Muhammad:

The list of people that Obama has worked with over the years and now has involved in his campaign does help answer some questions. It also reflects the dark side of Obama’s intent:

Sen. Barack Obama hired Jamillah Muhammad, an early community organizer friend in Chicago, to help train young volunteers in the “ruthless” agitation tactics of the late socialist organizer Saul Alinsky. The training sessions have been held at something called “Camp Obama” inside the campaign’s Chicago headquarters.

As WoldNetDaily explains, Jamillah Muhammad “led anti-military counseling in Chicago during the Gulf war” and her Chicago Coalition of African-American Religious Women sponsored “peace clubs”. Her agenda “dovetails with Obama’s plan to slash military spending and shift national resources to nonmilitary service, creating an army of young community organizers, such as those who work for the radical nonprofit ACORN.

Jamillah Muhammad served “as director of resource and program development for Jesse Jackson’s PUSH for Excellence in Chicago.” She previously “worked with Obama as a community organizer in the housing projects on Chicago’s South Side.”

“We have to support our troops from a different perspective than white people, because our soldiers are going to return home to the same lousy situation they left,” she said. “Patriotism means something all together different for us.”

….

Obama hired his old friend and colleague as a senior trainer at his Camp Obama, which has trained more than 2,000 young campaign volunteers in the techniques of community organization originally popularized by radical Saul Alinsky in order to organize voters and help win the election. Alinsky was a street agitator who sought to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and provoke a socialist revolution in America.

Camp Obama’s director is Jocelyn Woodards, another former Obama colleague who worked with him early last decade at an ACORN subsidiary to help get out the vote during Carol Moseley-Braun’s Senate campaign.

Woodards has taught campers to “be absolutely ruthless” in turning out the vote for Obama.

Obama recently told supporters in Nevada, a hotly contested state, to sharpen their elbows in the final days of the campaign. Confront Republicans, he said, and “get in their faces.”

American Thinker has a useful take on Obama’s civilian national security force. Lee Cary wrote back in July that Obama’s intent is “about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.”

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”

Obama Youth? Not if our vote means anything!

Well, I can certainly agree with that – that’s the only reason I am willing to consider McCain: Obama.

I could get rich selling this one. Aw, hell – any one of them…

Seems people are paying attention to Obama’s BFF, Jeremiah Wright, after all!! And to McCain’s character – I mean, that he has a demonstrable one, and it is GOOD!

PRECISELY!! It defies logic to even make the claim that to question the resume of someone, especially a candidate for the most powerful job in the world is racist!!

Oh, please – do NOT get me started on the Fourth Estate and the depths to which they have sunk this election. Show of hands who thought they sucked in 2000? And how much more do they suck now? Uh, yeah – total. They have failed miserably in their obligation to REPORT and not editorialize, or promote, or belittle, or act as if their sole responsibility is to tell us their OPINION, and not do their level best to report NEWS impartially, not rumors or lies or innuendo, but the actual facts of the story that they spent time RESEARCHING. You know, actually working on stories as opposed to regurgitating press packet info. Oh, damn – I got started after all…

It is our Constitutional Duty to not have leaders who defraud us, as the Democrats did this year. As they have for several years now as they work to deconstruct the Constitution and its protections. And you better believe, with what Obama has already shown us, should he “win” his way into the White House, you ain’t seen nothing yet. If state offices are already investigating private citizens without cause, what do you think will happen if Obama ends up as president with a Democratic House and Senate? We saw how they acted this year, especially with the caucuses and the RBC/DNC. We have seen how Obama’s “supporters” have acted. Obama hasn’t called them off as a candidate, no way will he call them off as president. It will be a new day – and not a bright one.

Amen to that. Love of country, love of the Constitution, love for the Bill of Rights, and love for true democracy – and if that means a revolution is needed, count me in.

My aunt sent me an interesting piece by Michael Barone on Monday, Oct. 13, entitled, “The Coming Liberal Thugocracy.” Huh – so I’m not the only one who thinks so. Like so many other concerns about Obama, this originates from something Obama said. Big surprise. Oh, don’t take my word for it:

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That’s what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama’s relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago – papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN’s phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg’s example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Uh, yep. I think we have seen just recently the extent to which Obama’s followers will go to support him and attempt to obliterate anyone who has not sworn lifelong fealty to him.

Oh, but you know Obama – it doesn’t just stop at trying to “convince” (read: browbeat, intimidate, threaten) fellow voters:

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-’02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama’s ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.

Golly gee, I reckon Obama being a big Constitutional SCHOLAR, as his minions love to claim, simply enables him in deciding which parts of the Constitution by which he will actually abide. Free speech? Not so much.

Thankfully, there are a few who still actually care what the Constitution prescribes (remember the day when our elected officials didn’t pick and choose their favorite little bits out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Yeah, well, me neither, but holy cow, it wasn’t THIS bad, was it??):

To their credit, some liberal old-timers – like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey – voted against the “fairness doctrine,” in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the “fairness doctrine” to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

But you know, it isn’t just limited to these thugs at rallies wearing unbelievably offensive t-shirts, or Obama plants screaming out nasty things at McCain/Palin rallies, oh no. It is more insidious than that:

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. “Saturday Night Live” ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC’s Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don’t want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

If you have tried to see that video, you know Barone is correct about this. Heaven forbid that anyone actually see that our financial crisis isn’t as simplistic as, “it’s all the Republicans fault!!” Then again, that would require a tad of analytical thinking, something in very short supply, it seems.

You know there is more:

Then there’s the Democrats’ “card check” legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions’ strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees’ homes – we know where you live – and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Sigh. I’m sorry, remind me which country this is supposed to be? I need to go check my passport or something, because I THOUGHT this was the United States of America, but the way it is acting now, no, the way the DEMOCRATS are acting now, is giving me pause. Barone, too:

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today’s liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

True that. This is the kicker, though:

“Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don’t like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead. (Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.)”

The Obama Thugocracy. I think Mr. Barone has coined the perfect term to describe the impact of Obama on this country – and that is the case BEFORE the election. Holy Toledo, can you just imagine the scope should he be elected (read: steal the election with the help of ACORN and Obama surrogates at your local polling place. You know, like the ones documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced” telling folks if they weren’t voting for Obama, to not even bother coming in. Ah, America – America, right??). If, indeed, Obama takes over the White House, I guess women should get used to being called despicable names, because THAT kind of free speech is A-OKAY with the Obama folk. But to actually talk about who Obama IS in ads or anywhere else? Not so much. Not at all, actually. Unless you’re loking for a big-ass lawsuit. All you need to know is he is The One. Nothing else matters, right? Welcome to the US-Obama/Wright/Ayers of A, folks. It’s a whole new world…

What would a gaudy extravaganza for “The Coronation” be without a dungeon? Sure enough, as Uppity Woman has already reported here wire cages topped off with barbed wire and stun-gun carrying guards await anyone who …. does what?

Despite detailed descriptions of the facility, the arrest, bond posting, and court processing, why one would be arrested remains fuzzy. I finally found the one sheet flier everyone will be handed that sheds new light on the term “vague.” Couched in the cloak of one’s rights, your guess as to why you can be hauled off to the Denver Gitmo is as good as mine. Every “right” has a “but.” You can speak out, unless….You can march on public streets, unless… Or, I quote, “Even if you are not engaged in unlawful activity, you are subject to citation and/or arrest if you do not leave the area defined by the police in their lawful (?) order to disperse.” I get the feeling that the police can make it up as they go.

This reminds me of the bigger picture. Obama’s comment last June 14th in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” suggests that his critics will be treated harshly. The Democratic Party has lost its moorings and appears to be about to push through an inexperienced candidate who we know little about (most records either conveniently missing or under embargo), and what we do know involves some pretty ruthless and dangerous associates. How would the freedom of expression and right of association be played out under an Obama administration? Like Denver, it simply is not clear–but it feels ominous.

(Geez, I miss the Big Dawg. What an eloquent, passionate, brilliant man he is!)

And then, there was Representative Clyburn who claimed to be “neutral” – you know, the same type of “neutral” that Donna Brazile was. Anyway, this is what Clyburn said about Bil Clinton:

Nice, huh? Never mind that President Clinton has worked TIRELESSLY for the African American community, and has stood with them for years. Nice payback, ESPECIALLY when Clinton did not DO what Clyburn accused him of doing. Yep, real nice, Jim.

Anywho – besides Clyburn clearly being in the tank for Obama, which he finally admitted in June, he is also known in the state of SC for his propensity toward earmarks. This is a subject on which I have written before (”Such Associates…“). Well, just hold onto your seats while you watch the following statement by Representative Clyburn at a forum in March of this year. It will blow you away!

See?? It’s a “Constitutional Mandate” for congresspeople to build pork into the budget for their family and friends! What’s the big to-do about, anyway?? Now, I hasten to add, I do not share the videographer’s political statements, and I am no fan of Senator DeMint, but he DID make a good point in this clip. And that point would be that Clyburn has a, um, well, let’s just say, UNIQUE understanding of the Constitution! Hey! Maybe THAT’S one of the reasons he supports Obama! They both seem to have a document with which I am not familiar to which they refer as “The Constitution!” Maybe they made their own. Ahem. So, yes – who the heck knew this was a “Constitutional MANDATE?”

I suppose that explains the following excerpts from article about Clyburn (highlights in bold are mine), Clyburn Quits Museum Board:
Hopes To Sidestep Conflict of Interest:

Clyburn, who tucked an $800,000 earmark for the museum into the federal budget approved late last year, said he decided to resign from the board after learning Friday that his nephew, Derrick Ballard, works for one of the two architectural firms recently hired to design the $70-$80 million museum.

This is by no means the first time issues have arisen regarding Clyburn’s propensity for earmarks:

In 2006, Clyburn was scrutinized by The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News for setting aside federal money for the Five Rivers community development organization, which hired the same nephew to design a building and reportedly paid the firm nearly $70,000 for initial work, though the building was never completed.

Five Rivers also employed Clyburn’s brother, Charles Clyburn.

Clyburn said the federal money he earmarked for Five Rivers was never appropriated, and he didn’t know of his relatives’ involvement with the organization, but he said that’s just the sort of appearance of impropriety he’s trying to avoid with the International African American Museum.

“There was no substance to it, but a lot of headlines,” he said.

Ballard works for Antoine Predock of Albuquerque, N.M., a nationally recognized architectural firm that teamed up with Moody Nolan of Columbus, Ohio, the nation’s largest black-owned architectural firm, to win the contract to design the International African American Museum. He could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon.

Rita Scott, vice chairwoman of the museum’s board, said board members were unaware the Predock firm employed a relative of Clyburn’s when the firm was selected.

Really? They had NO idea that the nephew of an incredibly POWERFUL Congerssional Representative from THIS DISTRICT worked for this particular architectural firm?? Well, of course not! The vice chairwoman continued:

“None of us knew,” Scott said. “It was a firm that we unanimously felt was the right firm.”

Evidently.

Not that the architectural firm is not a good one, it is:

Predock won the American Institute of Architects’ national gold medal in 2006, and Moody Nolan principal Curt Moody won the AIA Ohio gold medal in 2007.

The museum’s architect selection committee, which includes Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, unanimously picked the Moody/Predock team in February after interviewing three other finalists.

It is just a tad unbelievable that NO ONE KNEW, especially after the Five Rivers situation. It never occurred to ANYONE to consider that maybe, just maybe, the same nephew from the Five Rivers project, an ARCHITECT, might just have something to do with this other MAJOR project that received a huge earmark? Seriously?? I mean, I know we’re here in South Cackalacki with its really, really low academic rating (I’m kinda joking, but sadly too serious abt how far down SC is in terms of education in the country), but still – you would think SOMEONE would have thought to ask the question! Just sayin’ and all – you’d think the question would come up.

But, no. The question didn’t come up. And now we know that Rep. Clyburn, one of Obama’s big cheerleaders, and the HOUSE WHIP, no less, thinks it is his CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE to push pork into the Federal Budget for his district. Wow. You know, come to think of it, maybe it should never have been a surprise that Clyburn would back Obama, and try to tear down both Bill and Hillary along the way. The more I learn about him and how he operates, he seems like the perfect Obama supporter, don’t you think?

Given the Senate’s current make up, it seems unlikely that the Senate actually would convict President Bush, but the House has the numbers to impeach him. 

Even without a conviction, mere impeachment would be worthwhile if only to send messages 1) to future presidents with power-abuse problems, and 2) to future school children who will learn about our nation’s character and values by studying American history.

That and impeachment would let the world’s other (largely horrified) nations know that America is not as fundamentally horrifying as the Bush Administration has made us seem.

Today, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers announced that the committee will hold a hearing on July 25 about the "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses. "  That seems like a solid move forward on impeachment.  Conyers states:

"Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration….

"Since the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Committee has conducted extensive oversight into  allegations of misconduct by the administration, including:

"(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting
controversies;

"(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

"(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

"(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

"(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

"(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities."

The Constitution gives the House the right to impeach a president for, among other things, "high crimes and misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4).  The case law is neither abundant nor definite about what sorts of Presidential behavior qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors," likely because only two presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton).

If a president can be impeached (though not convicted) for committing perjury about an extra-marital affair, than I suspect that the House could credibly argue for the impeachment of President Bush based on any of the six types of misconduct that Rep. Conyers listed.

Time’ll tell on this one. [I wasn’t able to link to Conyers’ statement, because it isn’t yet up at the Judiciary Committee website, which I got it via email.

Cross posted at Buck Naked Politics.

Paul the Spud has been yapping “about Obama’s embracing of Bush’s Faith Based Organization (FBO) plan.” He quotes an A.P. article, and boldfaces this sentence:

Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was “tagged as being on the left.”

Then Paul the Spud adds:

Forget that “taking a page from President Bush” makes my skin crawl. Forget the “aggressive reach” for Republicans. Forget the “centrist themes” in regards to guns, spying on Americans (I refuse to call it “government surveillance”) and capital punishment. Forget the use of Reagan. All of this give me hives, but riddle me this, Batman:

Why the hell should I be excited and agog about a Democratic Presidential candidate who is so goddamned eager to distance himself from “the left,” progressives, and everything I value?

Paul the Spud quotes from Obama’s speech, posted at Obama’s campaign site. About Obama’s plan, he observes:

Obama recognizes the fact that many FBOs, as opposed to social services organizations, secular or otherwise, that are trained and experienced in providing services that have had their budgets gutted by the Bush administration, may not be equipped to provide best services. Instead of returning that money to the organizations that were already doing good work, he’s going to give more money to the organizations that may or may not know what they’re doing.

Then, his big plan for training these FBO’s is to take already overworked organizations that are struggling to provide services for their clients with minuscule budgets and staff, and have them train these FBO’s to do their jobs. Isn’t that just a brilliant bit of outsourcing?

In addition, is “training the trainers” optional? If so, then there will be some FBO’s that will be paid to provide services they’re not trained to provide, or if not, they will be told by the government how to provide their services. How does that work with the separation of church and state? And how is that fair to FBO’s?

And that’s why Paul the Spud says, “I’m living in a cuckoo clock.”

There are many noble sentiments expressed in that speech so I won’t take issue with it on its face. Then again, with 20 speechwriters, including some who worked for Kennedy, invoking the great specters of Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt and our noble goals for America, how can you go wrong?

The problem, therefore, is not with the speech, but with the man delivering it.

I hate to give the cretin Chris Matthews any oxygen whatsoever, but I must say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. At one point during the primary, he said in reference to the Obama campaign : “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

And here again, Obama is explaining. For me, more at issue than his patriotism are his qualifications. But if he feels he needs to take the time to make sure people know how patriotic he is, well, he doth protest too much, methinks:

“So let me say this at the outset of my remarks, I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand by when I hear others question mine.”

To wit, his speech, in which he spoke about the struggles of America and how, though we fall short of the ideals of our founding fathers, we are still the best country on earth and will always reach for those goals.

So what noble goal is Senator Obama pursuing then, that allows him and his surrogates to call none other than William Jefferson Clinton a racist and smear his legacy, bamboozling those too young to remember how much good Bill and Hillary did for the African American community, and certainly America as a whole, as Obama urges voters to forget about eight years of peace and prosperity, a balanced budget, a surplus in the hundreds of billions and lower unemployment.

He allows his surrogates to unjustly tear down those encroaching upon him and then stands nobly above the fray so he can deliver pretty speeches like this, unhampered and seemingly innocent.

He cautions that our government is piling up mountains of debt, putting off changes to our energy policies and “placing short term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well being.” How is it then that he voted in favor of Bush/Cheney’s energy bill while both Senators Clinton and McCain voted against it? Why does Obama trash the policies of good Democrats only to tout Reaganomics – the era of junk bonds, double digit interest rates and an end to the Fairness Doctrine.

He eloquently discussed Martin Luther King, Jr., ‘a patriot who led the movement to help America confront her tragic history of racial injustice, and the young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Graib.’ Patriotic, too.

He then spoke in glowing terms about John McCain’s patriotism and service to his country, right after General Wesley Clark – surely at the Obama campaign’s behest – was dispatched to Face The Nation on Sunday to say that McCain’s service and sacrifice, while great and honorable, did not necessarily qualify him to be President. When the sound bite did not play well, it was at that point, Obama threw General Clark, also a patriot, under the bus.

Ironically, he also mentions the tragedy now occurring in Zimbabwe, where a corrupt leader and his young followers, are threatening those who do not vote for him with death. Certainly, I am by no means equating their situation with ours.

Surely, we don’t have to fear danger in this country if we vote our conscience, but the threats, harassment and rudeness some of Senator Clinton’s supporters have received at the hand of Senator Obama’s more reckless followers and ‘blogger boyz’ doesn’t seem in keeping with the spirit of independence, liberty and unity Senator Obama is discussing.

Why has he never used his powerful and soaring rhetoric to stand up and tell those guilty of this abusive behavior that this would absolutely not be tolerated in this new post-partisan world he is forging? Rather he has advantaged himself by their crude behavior, and he was also all too happy to have a complicit media chime in and help trash Senator Clinton and her voters to the bargain.

He mentions Harry Truman, yet does not seem dedicated enough to carry out Truman’s wishes in aiming to providing health care for every American, as Senator Obama’s plan would clearly leave about 16 million out.

He speaks of his mother reading the Declaration of Independence to him as a child: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” Admirable for a mother to share that with her young son. Well, we are all created equal.

Since he’s brought it up, why then, if he is such a champion of equality and a champion of women, are the women on Senator Obama’s campaign staff earning significantly less than the men? Actually, John McCain employs more women on his staff than men, and the women are paid higher salaries than their male counterparts. So who is the progressive here? Who speaks to equality for all?

As Senator Obama asks how we restore our faith in government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests, he would be well served to ask himself why he campaigned on a platform he seems determined now to repudiate and run from. His capitulation on FISA and reneging on his promise to use public campaign financing spring immediately to mind.

While he is waxing poetic about patriotism, he would also do well to look in the mirror and ask himself why, if he, as Teddy Kennedy put it, embodies the nobler aspirations of the American people – is Senator Obama so divisive, instead of a uniting force?

Why have he and his surrogates spent months denigrating those who did not vote for him? Bitter, clueless, uneducated, racist, Archie Bunkers, over the hill, Hillary hags and the like. How is this behavior befitting of the patriot and great leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., whose name he constantly evokes as if he is so ready to follow in his footsteps?

Senator Obama is the presumptive nominee. Supposedly the standard bearer of our party. Why, then, would he allow the DNC to use the talking point that those who will not vote for him are afraid of him because of his race? Why always excuses and blame?

Perhaps some do not feel he is qualified for the office with his paper thin resume and a voting record that thus far, have not exhibited moral courage or a firm stand on the issues.

A leader capable of the unifying qualities Obama discusses so beautifully in his speech and purports to possess must understand how to reach out to others, to give of him or herself and make this election about the voters, to humble himself if necessary by reaching out to people with whom he has not yet been able to find a connection. True leadership does not disparage. It is not arrogant or aloof. It seeks solutions, not excuses.

I cannot help but feel that his speeches, filled with rich imagery, are meant to distract from the issue at hand, rather than to focus on it. The issue was, is, and will remain Senator Obama and whether he is ready and fit to lead this country in conquering the struggles that we face.

We don’t need smoke and mirrors or a distraction. We don’t need any more lofty generalities in this country. We have had enough of words that accomplish little.

I don’t have a problem with his words. I have misgivings about actions that do not match the rhetoric. As we approach Independence Day, it is important for all of us to remember the rights all our ancestors fought for, regardless of our backgrounds or respective heritage.

The freedoms we enjoy today will only be maintained in full if we continue to be vigilant and voice our concerns, protest when we must and hold our leaders’ feet to the fire. That includes holding Senator Obama’s feet to the fire when he does an about face on the very things he pretends to stand for, purporting to be so liberal while cozying up to big business and ignoring the working people of this country and now, too, those on the left who elevated and supported his campaign in the first place.

Patriotism is about many things. It is about courage. It is about unshakeable principles. I have heard it said that you will never know what your principles truly are until they become inconvenient to you.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama has thus far shown that what becomes inconvenient also becomes immediately disposable. How patriotic is that?

… Barack Obama has taken multiple positions on banning handguns and the D.C. handgun ban. He has stated his belief that handgun bans were constitutional and he supported them. Then he actually refused to state a position. Now, Barack Obama has issued a statement that some are reporting as an embrace of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban while others are reporting that he is still straddling his position. [See more below.]

Even an Obama supporters, TalkLeft’s Big Tent Democrat, attacks Obama’s “Feet of Clay.” BTD quotes Politico:

Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. … when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric. Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands. … Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes. …

Denver delegates must know that vacillating statements and actual votes that contradict those statements on Second Amendment issues are “deal breakers” for millions of voters nationwide. Memeorandum.com is tracking posts linking Politico’s “Obama: Change Agent Goes Conventional.” Most astonishing: the ABC News report by Jake Tapper on Obama’s stumbling, bumbling exchange with a Pennsylvania reporter:

Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban.

Here’s how the exchange went down.

"In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional," Layne said. "Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—

"That’s not what I said," Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck.

"Your aide said that," Layne clarified.

"I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law," Obama said. … (Read all of Jake Tapper’s “Obama Eager to Distance Self from Campaign’s Former Position on DC Handgun Ban.”)

You think those GOP 527s — especially the NRA — won’t relentlessly attack Obama on his defensive backtracking from his all-over-the-map statements? His campaign can be derailed permanently by this one issue alone. The NRA has already begun:

From the NRA’s wryly-titled story, “Clinging to the Constitution“:

In recent days, GOP presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Americans “clinging” to guns and religion. Senator McCain’s comments, though, have a different spin. In Arlington, Virginia, for instance, McCain said: “I know why [residents of small towns] embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, and it’s because they’re fundamentally good and decent people. ”

By referencing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, John McCain demonstrates an understanding of this issue that has continued to escape Barack Obama. Americans don’t “cling” to their guns out of bitterness. They fight to preserve their constitutional liberties because they love this country.

If Barack Obama wants to believe that gun owners are simply bitter…he should remember something else. We’re voters too, and we don’t support those who believe in Chicago-style gun control.

That’s mild by NRA standards. They’re just warming up!

The NRA crippled Al Gore in 2000. During the days of the Florida recount, I was at a local Safeway. The barely-eligible-to-vote teen who boxed my groceries noticed the Al Gore sticker on my jacket. He said, “I would have voted for Gore, but he was going to take my guns away.”

That the NRA’s message filtered down to an 18-year-old grocery store box boy in a rural community, and got him to change his vote, is proof that the NRA knows how to demolish its perceived foes.

Accurate or not, the NRA’s campaign against Gore worked in 2000. The NRA’s campaign will have endless ways to attack Obama in 2008 because of his flip-flopping statements and his Illinois state senate voting record that, CBS News predicted, will haunt Barack Obama in a general election.

Obama’s remapping of his policy issues to take more “advantageous routes,” as characterized by today’s hot Politico story, will be derailed by relentless campaigns by the NRA and other 527s. Obama will end up cut off at the knees once his all-over-the-map views and his Illinois state senate voting record on gun rights are exposed.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here’s a fascinating timeline of Obama’s conflicting statements on the Second Amendment, via a McCain campaign press release. (Clearly, this is “oppo research” that the McCain campaign had ready to issue once the SCOTUS ruling came in yesterday morning, and this press release was issued immediately afterwards.)

A TIMELINE OF POLITICAL POSITIONING ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

… Please find below a timeline of Barack Obama’s support for the D.C. handgun ban and subsequent reversal:

SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

2004: Barack Obama Voted Against “Letting People Use A Self-Defense Argument If Charged With Violating Local Handgun Bans.” “[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” (Ryan Keith “Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics,” The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

NOVEMBER 2007: The Chicago Tribune Reports That The Obama Campaign Says Barack Obama “Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional.” “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

FEBRUARY 2008: During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

· In The Same Interview, Barack Obama Indicated He Feels The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. Harris: “And you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?” Obama: “Oh, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets …” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

· In This Interview, Barack Obama “Didn’t Dispute The Characterization That He Believes The Ban Is Constitutional.” “But a colleague points out that Obama took a question about the constitutionality of the gun ban from WJLA’s Leon Harris during the Potomac Primary, and didn’t dispute the characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional.” (Ben Smith, “Inartful,” The Politico, 6/26/08)

· Watch The Interview Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE

FEBRUARY 2008: Barack Obama “Declined To Take A Position For Or Against Its Constitutionality.” “Today Obama reiterated his support for tighter enforcement of laws already on the books – such as stronger background checks and enhancing programs to trace the provenance of guns used in crimes. He would also seek to close the loopholes that currently apply to firearms purchased at gun shows. But asked today about the DC handgun ban currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, Obama declined to take a position for or against its Constitutionality but did express broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves.” (David Wright, Ursula Fahy And Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News, 2/15/08)

MARCH 2008: Obama Campaign “Would Not Elaborate On Whether The Senator Supports The D.C. Gun Ban.” “Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Mr. Obama ‘believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.’ ‘He also believes that the Constitution permits state and local governments to adopt reasonable and common-sense gun safety measures,’ she said, but would not elaborate on the whether the senator supports the D.C. gun ban.” (Gary Emerling, “Nation Awaits D.C. Handgun Ruling,” The Washington Times, 3/17/08)

APRIL 2008: Barack Obama Says “I Confess I Obviously Haven’t Listened To The Briefs And Looked At All The Evidence.” CHARLIE GIBSON: “Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law — it’s had a law since 1976; it’s now before the United States Supreme Court — that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barrelled rifle. Is that a law consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?” OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use i t. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There’s the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that’s passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what’s happening here in Philadelphia and what’s happening in Chicago.” (Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08

JUNE 2008: Barack Obama Says He Wants To “Wait And See How The Supreme Court Comes Down.” OBAMA: “What I have said is that I do not — what I have said is, is that I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some commonsense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact-intensive decision that has to be made. But I do think that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So, what I would like to do is wait and see how the Supreme Court comes down, and evaluate the actual reasoning in the case to see how broad or narrow the decision’s going to be.” (Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)

JUNE 2008: The Obama Campaign Says An Unnamed Was “Inartful” In Telling The Chicago Tribune That Barack Obama Thought The Handgun Ban Was Constitutional “With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an ‘inartful’ statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional. ‘That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.” (Teddy Davis And Alexa Ainsworth, “Obama Camp Disavows Last Year’s ‘Inartful’ Statement On D.C. Gun Law,” ABC News, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: ABC News’ Jake Tapper Says Barack Obama Is “Embracing The 5-4 Decision, Written By Justice Antonin Scalia, That Struck Down The DC Handgun Ban As Unconstitutional.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, may have a long record of supporting gun control measures, and he may have seemed to have previously endorsed the DC Handgun Ban. But just now he issued a paper statement embracing the 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that struck down the DC Handgun Ban as unconstitutional.” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Embraces Supreme Court Decision As ‘Well-Needed Guidance,’” ABC News, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Says Barack Obama “Plainly Trying To Straddle Here.” “He’s plainly trying to straddle here. It actually sounds – especially the ‘Cheyenne and Chicago’ language – quite a bit like the language Howard Dean used in ‘04 when trying to reconcile gun views tailored for pro-gun Vermont with a Dem primary.” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama Careful On Heller,” Politico, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: Now, This Afternoon, Barack Obama Says “I’ve Been Very Consistent, I Teach Constitutional Law” Despite His Numerous Contradictory Positions. “Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban. Here’s how the exchange went down. ‘In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional,’ Layne said. ‘Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—’ ‘That’s not what I said,’ Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck. ‘Your aide said that,’ Layne clarified. ‘I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law,” Obama said. What I said was that I believe 2nd Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don’t thi nk those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I’ve been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today.’” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Eager To Distance Self From Campaign’s Former Position On DC Handgun Ban,” ABC News, 6/26/08)

###

A round up of comments in Obamaland (Talking Points Memo and Crooks and Liars, I dare not tread the threads on the DailyKos, not enough disinfectant in California to delouse me later) on Senator Obama and FISA:

105 Democratic representatives voted for the bill. Obama doesn’t have the political capital to win this battle. It’s silly for him to make his last stand here when he’s fighting for the presidency–the larger war.

Because the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.

Let’s keep in mind that Senator Obama is a Constitutional lawyer, and calm down until we know exactly what we are talking about.

More like he lectured on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, I don’t think he ever practised in the field and he certainly isn’t practising in it now, but hope springs eternal.

People have to remember. Obama is the Junior Senator from Illinois who is getting a lot of press. Three weeks ago he wasn’t even the Party’s Nominee. He’s expressed his concern regarding the retroactive immunity (a poison pill the R’s have thrown into this) but as of right now he is NOT THE PRESIDENT. Maybe some people thought the election is already won but to be honest the guy doesn’t have the kind of political capital we’re ascribing to him here in the netroots. He’s got a WAR to win and I can see already that driving himself into a buzzsaw with his own party over this one issue will not win him the election. He needs to keep his eye on the prize and as others have stated not look weak grandstanding over something he can’t change anyway.

Apparently, an election matters more than the Constitution.

The O! is our shepherd.

Well, he certainly pulled the wool over your eyes.

He will fix it when he’s President.

And he’ll give us healthcare, solve our energy problems, and bring about world peace the moment he walks in the Oval Office just because he’s Obama, the messiah.

Here’s how it will go down:

Obama, Feingold and a bunch of others who oppose retroactive immunity will first move an amendment stripping that clause from the bill. There will be spirited debate, including a stirring speech by Obama on why retroactive absolution for illegal acts is bad. The amendment will then go to a vote and be soundly defeated. Pure theater; everyone knows it. Then, in debate on the main motion — the “compromise” as received from the House — Obama will either repeat what he said in today’s statement — that the bill is better than nothing — or he’ll stay silent. Feingold and a few others will refuse to cave, and vote no. Obama will vote yes. The bill will pass overwhelmingly. The netroots will sulk for a few days; the general public will hardly notice. Who’s going to make immunity an election issue? Certainly not McCain. Whereas if Obama votes no, he’ll be tarred as soft on terrorism.

That’s how the game is played. I’m disappointed, too; the constitution is a terrible thing to waste.

But I take some comfort that — despite everyone clamoring for him to take a position — Obama needed 24 hours of soul-searching before concluding he had to sell out. Face it, right now his Job 1 is getting elected president. Feingold can afford to take the high road; Obama has to do what it takes to win.

No, his job as United States Senator is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s why they take an Oath:

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

The biggest mistake this country ever made was to stop requiring civic classes in high school. The Constitution, capital C there buddy (that mere fact should tell you something), a terrible thing to waste? Please get me a sedative before I collapse from the stupidity of that statement.

I suspect that most of Barack’s voters understand the difference between political necessity in the current climate vice a character flaw. I suspect most of us aren’t so childish that we would bite off our nose to spite our face.

I, for one, am not a single-issue person. There are larger things at stake than a couple of executives who shared some billing records. I am willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until elected.

The bar will be raised much higher at that point, but for now we have to be a little more expedient with our All or Nothing mentality. It doesn’t win elections and certainly doesn’t lead to governing majorities.

True, there are larger things at stake than a couple of executives who shared some billing records like upholding the law, the right against unreasonable search and seizures, and the Constitution. Politics is not just about issues, issues come and go. Politics, at its core is, about principles. Sacrifice those and what’s the point of politics?

Where does McCain stand on the constitution? Will McCain preserve the 4th admendment?

When all else fails, deflect the question.

To be fair, there are plenty of very upset and embittered Obamaphiles including many who now claim they can’t support him but there is still a potent kool-aid element out there.

A note to the non-US readership, the FISA bill is a retroactive immunity bill for telecommunication companies that may have violated 1978 FISA law that prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. Here’s the background on FISA.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

From my blog, By The Fault.