November 3, 2008
Best. Video. Ever. “Home Invasion”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: California, Church-State Separation, Civil Rights, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Privacy, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos
Filed under: California, Church-State Separation, Civil Rights, Homophobia, LDS/Mormons, Marriage, Privacy, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos
Video: Man Pulled Over By Fresno Police for Wearing No On 8 Button
“Last Sunday (November 2) Drew Stoeckel went to Cornerstone Church, a large conservative congregation that helped organize a Yes on 8 rally in Fresno, to see what they would talk about. Jim Franklin, the pastor at Cornerstone said that he and mayor Alan Autry had received death threats because they support proposition 8. Both were speakers at the Yes on 8 rally held at Fresno City Hall on Sunday, October 26. There were rumors that Pastor Franklin was going to encourage his congregation to disrupt the No on 8 rally at Fresno City Hall, planned for later in the day. Drew became the object of unwanted attention by Cornerstone security and the Fresno Police Department, apparently because he had a No on 8 button on his shirt.”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: California, Civil Rights, Free Speech, Homeland Insecurity, Homophobia, Law Enforcement, Marriage, Privacy, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Videos
October 10, 2008
Video: Gender Auditors
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: California, Marriage, Privacy, Proposition 8, Videos
July 10, 2008
ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law
Group Also Asks Secret Intelligence Court Not To Exclude Public From Any Proceedings On New Law’s Constitutionality
NEW YORK — July 10 — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans’ international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work — which relies on confidential communications — will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications.
“Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power — and that’s exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires.”
In today’s legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it’s conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in today’s case are:
• The Nation and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges
• Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
• Defense attorneys Dan Arshack, David Nevin, Scott McKay and Sylvia Royce
“As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world — from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters’ confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised,” said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today’s lawsuit. “I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm’s way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it’s a right.”
The ACLU’s legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law’s constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
“The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans’ international e-mails and telephone calls,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind.”
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
“A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles,” said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The only thing compromised in this so-called ‘compromise’ law is the Constitution.”
Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
More information, including today’s complaint, a video discussing the ACLU’s legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www.aclu.org/faa
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Civil Rights, George W. Bush, Homeland Insecurity, Press Releases, Privacy, U.S. Congress
July 9, 2008
Headzup: Democrats And Obama Cave On FISA
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Homeland Insecurity, Privacy, U.S. Congress, Videos
One Good Thing About Barack Obama’s Vote for FISA
Mr. No-Show actually showed up this time and voted!
Other than that, his “yea” vote is par for the course for Barack Obama (DINO-Ill.), and while we’re not at all surprised, we’re as disgusted as ever with him.
Oh, and didja hear? Hillary Clinton voted AGAINST it.
Per Glenn Greenwald:
Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly. …With cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 … thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it.
Now, before you Obama kids start whining, “Even if Obama had voted against it, it would have passed!” that’s not the point. This is the point:
Obama’s vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama’s spokesman — in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama’s views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement — issued this emphatic vow:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill — the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster — and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult of imagine. …
With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country. …
Greenwald goes on to blast all the Democrats responsible for this travesty (hullo! Pelosi! Reid!), and rightly so.
We’re as disgusted with the lot of them, too — but even more disgusted that Barack Obama — the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and the lone “Democratic” contender for the White House — is now officially nothing more than a BushCo enabler, who did indeed flip-flop — or outright lied (you decide) to his blinded-by-the-Kool-Aid cult, who are responsible for forcing this snake-oil salesman down our throats.
Thanks for murdering the Fourth Amendment, Obama. And thanks for destroying the Democratic Party, Obamaniacs. It is your fault. You should have listened. You should have listened.
I hope your buyer’s remorse turns into the deepest shame humanly possible, so it prevents you from making such a boneheaded mistake in the future. I can’t predict the extent of the damage you’ve wrought already — but if you stay on this singleminded, simpleminded track, you’re going to destroy a lot more than the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Insecurity, Privacy, U.S. Congress
July 8, 2008
Obama supporters: If you think my “I told you so” posts are brutal…
…this one from Charles Lemos at No Quarter is one for the vaults — a real keeper:
The Plight of the Obama Crowd I have zero compassion for them. Anyone who supported Obama after March 2008 is clearly either a delusional Obama cultist or a head in the sand idiot. This one is on you.
You had better more experienced choices, say Senator Joe Biden. You had better more principled candidates who live their convictions, say Representative Dennis Kucinich. You had a reform-minded committed populist, say former Senator John Edwards. And then you had Hillary Clinton who despite some flaws encompassed all the best qualities of the aforementioned. You dug the Democratic Party’s grave, now wallow in it for all I care.
For months, countless voices of reason have pointed out time and again, Obama is an empty suit… Obama is a fraud. He lacks experience. He has no relevant qualifications. He has no conviction other than his own political welfare.
His past behaviour is troublesome. He threw Alice Palmer and four others off the ballot. His rise through the labyrinth of Chicago politics took him down some worrisome alleys and forged alliances with a cast of characters include Louis Farrahkan, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, Antonin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. Now he pals around with Donnie McClurkin, Father Michael Pfleger, and Jodie Evans.
For months committed liberals like Paul Krugman, in column after column, demonstrated how his proposals weren’t that progressive or even centrist. I’ve grown hoarse pointing out Obama’s lobbyist connections and his ties to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. …
But you would not listen. You were mired in a speech that Obama gave in 2002. I hope that speech keeps you warm the next four years because that’s is the extent of his progressive record, a speech. His real record is far more centrist (that reach out across the aisle and ream someone kind of record), or perhaps corporatist is a better choice of words. Six billion dollars in subsidies to the oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry. …
His votes in the Senate were more pro-Bush than Hillary’s, than Biden’s, than Dodd’s, than Edwards’. Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. There are 49 Democrats and one Socialist and one “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. Forty-second out of 51. Funny how that is. Laughing yet?
Now, you are upset that he is backtracking. News flash: he says what he thinks will please his audience at the moment and then he does whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. And what a career it is. Zero legislative accomplishments. Zip. Name one. He has missed 42% of the votes in the Senate this year. Over the comparable period, Hillary missed 30%. That’s over a quarter more votes missed. Not trivial and by design. He and his handlers don’t want him to have a record to run on.
You think his vote on FISA was shocking. Really? He is the candidate of corporate interests, the candidate of the anti-Clinton Democratic establishment. …
Obama is the designated one, the annointed one, but you satistified yourselves with silly speeches and satiated yourselves with empty platitudes galore. You went for the hip and the flash, a no-hit wonder who hasn’t even come to bat yet. He moves from one on deck circle to another never fully entering the game. …
So far he’s trampled on the Fourth Amendment, a women’s right to choose, the health care of all Americans and now the cornerstone of what brung him to the dance in the first place, that magical speech in 2002 that had to be re-recorded so it could be replayed again and again and use your opposition to a fruitless war as his springboard to power. …
It’s a long one, and worth the full read, so do click the link and settle in.
About the only point I disagree with is the idea that a McCain presidency would be superior to an Obama presidency; I sincerely believe they would be equally disastrous.
Other than that, I’m left wondering — as I have been since Obama started coming clean about who he really is and what he really represents — whether Hillary Clinton actually might have a chance at the nomination after all. No, that’s not the wishful thinking of a dedicated Hillary supporter (I’m a Kucinich woman, remember — although at this point I would give my eyeteeth to have Clinton beat the pants off McCain); I’m simply observing that the convention hasn’t happened yet, and wondering how many superdelegates are rethinking their commitment to Obama.
I also wonder why Obama is showing his hand now, rather than after the nomination is safely in his pocket. I know of no constituency whose votes are up for grabs on the basis of support for illegal wiretapping, or delaying an Iraq pullout — or, in short, whose votes rest on a Republican candidate who happens to have a D after his name. Obama is embracing much of the agenda the American public is dying to get away from — the Bush agenda — which is the sole reason the Democratic Party was practically assured of a lock on the White House: the people want a radical departure from anything Bush. (Emphasis on the word “was”; blind Obama worship has put the Democratic Party in a tenuous position; the White House is no longer a sure thing. And with the spectacular failure of do-nothings Pelosi and Reid, I am beginning to doubt my once near-certain prediction that Democrats will pick up some 30 or 40 seats in the House alone this November.)
That’s what’s got the Obama supporters in such a tizzy: Obama sold himself on the ideal of “change” everybody wanted, and then pulled the rug right out from under those gullible enough to buy the hype without taking a critical look at the man himself. They bought into that “blank screen” business.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you look at Obama and see no “there” there.If you’re an Obama supporter, nothing gets your goat like a Clinton supporter saying Obama is all style and no substance.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you ask Obama supporters to show you Obama’s substance.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you tell Clinton supporters that Obama is a “blank screen” onto which you’re supposed to project all your own hopes and dreams.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, the “blank screen” line just means there’s no “there” there.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you get angry when the Clinton supporters dismiss the “blank screen” concept.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you ask the Obama supporters to explain, in their own words, what Obama intends to actually do.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you direct all Clinton supporters to Obama’s Web site, to read somebody else’s words — and then complain that nobody reads Obama’s Web site.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you’ve combed through Obama’s Web site, repeatedly, and find no “there” there.
Sometimes it’s eerie when your own words are even clearer to you in reflection than they were the day you wrote them.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Privacy
July 7, 2008
Guess Who Just Got Thrown Under the ObamaBus?
Why, Mark Crispin Miller — rightful darling of the so-called “progressive left” now marching in lockstep to the tune of “I Will Follow Him” (“…follow Him wherever He may go…”), but now a pariah, since Miller has the audacity to call it like it is:
Obama’s FISA Statement is a Mess
(Just like his Stand on Faith-based Programs)Obama’s recent rightward moves — concerning BushCo’s faith-based programs, and the FISA bill — have both been loudly justified by commentators who would certainly deplore them if it weren’t Obama who had made them.
The thinking goes like this: “Obama’s our guy, and he’s really cool, the candidate of ‘change,’ so we should cut him all the slack he needs, so he can get elected president. In any case, this recent stuff is not so bad. So let’s all lighten up — or else. Because he has to make such moves, or he will lose; and those who criticize him now are only helping the Republicans.”
That view is wrong on every count. …
Find out why. Click the link and read the whole piece. It’s more than worth it.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Homeland Insecurity, Privacy, Religion & Spirituality
June 21, 2008
Dear Obama Supporters: We told you so.
WASHINGTON, DC — June 20 — Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293-129, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week. The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office: “It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution. “No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights. “More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House.” For more information, go to: www.aclu.org/fisa To read the ACLU’s letter on H.R. 6304, go to: www.aclu.org/safefree… |
Did you really think I wouldn’t take Obamaniacs — not mere supporters, but Obamaniacs — to the woodshed on this one?
I’m not talking about his AIPAC speech, his endorsement of (and TV ad for) warmongering, Bush-tax-cuts-loving, right-wing Democrat John Barrow, or even the appalling notion that DADT darling Sam Nunn really is on his short list of VP picks — all blogworthy topics, but all of which pale in comparison to Obama’s sell-out on…
…you know what I’m going to say. G’head, say it with me: FISA.
Grab a cold one, sit back, and get comfortable.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA “Compromise”
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
So, how ya feelin’, Obama supporters, now that your guy, Mister “Constitutional Lawyer,” has just peed all over the Constitution — or, more acurately, driven a stake through the heart of the Fourth Amendment?
Sorry (no, actually, after the rotten way you’ve treated me and every other non-Obamaite, I’m not sorry at all) to rub salt into your freshly opened wounds, but I told you so: He was bound to disappoint you, in a big, big way. Me, I’m not “disappointed” or at all surprised, because this is exactly the sort of behavior I — and more real Democrats than you want to know about — have expected of him. The signs have always been there. You just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “Lalalalalalala! I can’t hear you! Lalalalalalala!” — that is, when you weren’t channeling the dis-ease of cognitive dissonance into making schoolyard-bully, ad hominem attacks on the people who have been trying to force you to see Obama for what he is: just another slick, old-school politician — and worse, in my book, a gen-u-ine DINO.
Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights — and allow rampant lawbreaking — if we want to save ourselves from “the grave threats we face” sounds awfully familiar. He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. … Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this “effort” is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: “Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try.” The article continued: “Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to ‘express their views.’” We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill — and fight it to the bitter end — but this whole separate vote they’ll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: “Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn’t, I decided to support the compromise.” It’s almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama’s support for the bill before unveiling it. Either way, Obama — if amnesty isn’t removed — is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that, though we ought to continue to fight its enactment with a focus on removing amnesty in the Senate. — Glenn Greenwald |
I kept telling you: Obama is no liberal. Obama was never a liberal.
But you let him pull the wool over your eyes. And we are all going to pay for it.
Today, from what I’ve been observing on the pro-Obama blogs and boards, half of you are sick to your stomachs over Obama’s FISA sell-out (and those rational Obama supporters who dare to criticize Teh Chosen One are getting eaten alive by the Obamaniacs; wade through the hysteria at Democratic Underground yourself if you want evidence), while the other half are still in denial, grasping desperately at straws; i.e., “Obama probably knows something we don’t, and he just can’t talk about it publicly right now! This is all part of a big plan that’s for the greater good! We have to trust him!” (And where have you heard that kind of talk before? I’ll tell you: from Bush supporters.)
And then there’s this oft-seen apologist justification: “Obama can’t be seen as soft on terror! Once he gets into the White House, then he’ll roll back FISA, completely! We have to trust him!“
So you’re worried about being seen as “soft on terror,” eh? So the Obamapologists, like the spineless, mealy-mouthed House Democrats who passed this ugly thing, are stuck in the same old groove: always running defense, in the position they allow Republicans to put them in. Some leadership. Some change.
If you can’t hold Mr. Accountability accountable now, do you really believe he’s going to give two shits what you think when he’s the one basking in all that unfettered power he’ll have inherited from Bush? (How’d ya like the juxtaposition between “the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people” and “I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary …”?)
In short, Barack doesn’t want to forfeit all that nice, juicy, limitless power George W. Bush has right now.
I know y’all are sick to death of us gays and our silly little civil-rights “wedge issue,” but damn it anyway, I’ll say it again: Didja notice how Obama didn’t give two shits about what the gay community had to say during the Donnie McClurkin flap? That was a sign — a big sign to those of us on the receiving end of Barack’s blatant F.U. But you wouldn’t sit up and take notice then, because it didn’t impact you. Well, now, this FISA thing impacts everybody. How’s it feel to know Obama doesn’t give a damn about your civil liberties anymore than he does our civil rights?
I agree with my man Thoreau that telecom immunity is a genuine test of Barack Obama’s bona fides on civil liberties. It’s also a genuine test of the liberal side of any liberal-libertarian fusionism. I think it’s very possibly a test that Obama has already failed. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass. — Unqualified Offerings |
Really, kids, when are you going to face reality? Obama going back on his word over public campaign financing should have been a big clue of what was to come (namely, something even bigger), but which had little effect on your insistence that Obama is the best thing to come along for democracy since the invention of the printing press. You know what I saw most of the Obamaniacs saying at DU? That public campaign financing was a non-issue. That the American people don’t care about public campaign financing. That the American people are too ignorant to even understand public campaign financing. That the MSM was creating a mountain out of a molehole. That this, too, shall pass.
But you didn’t get it. Whether or not anyone cares about or understands public campaign financing (which plenty of us do), those who don’t do understand the one thing you wish they didn’t: Obama did commit to public campaign financing, and he went back on his word. (I’d quote the headline in Time magazine that says it all, but it’s an AP source; let’s just say it echoes what I wrote two days ago: Obama decided to forgo integrity in favor of cold, hard cash.)
No matter how many months you’ve spent convincing yourselves that those of us who don’t live in ObamaWorld are just a bunch of bitter, old, hormonal morons, that right there should have forced you to realize that we haven’t just been talking out of our butts — and that our very real issues with Obama are just that: issues, and not the manifestion of Hillary worship.
“Work to remove” telecom immunity should be rewritten to “maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away.” What a colossal failure of leadership. Obama earns a Wanker of the Day from Atrios. And it’s well-deserved. I thought he’d issue some vague statement of disapproval and then miss the vote. This endorsement of a X’ing out the Fourth Amendment is waaaay out of bounds. — Digby |
You should have known.
Today, at least, you’re not claiming that Obama’s FISA flip-flop is a non-issue, or that the American people are too apathetic — or stupid — to care about it. You’re upset, angry, and disillusioned. As you should be.
What you shouldn’t be is surprised.
Taylor Marsh (whom you Obama supporters love to hate) nails it:
Not Exactly the Change You were Hoping For
Democrats caved. Speaker Pelosi led the cave in, along with Steny Hoyer and so many others.Including the Democratic nominee for president, with a teaser. About that telecom immunity he supports giving companies like AT&T, Senator Obama “will work… to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.” …
Not that I’m in the least surprised.
Way to go Democrats! You showed them, er… Way to stand up, um… No caving to fear-mongering from you all…eh… #*@$! Spineless, the lot of them who caved on this just to make sure Republicans couldn’t say they were “soft on terrorism.”
As long as Republicans get to lead top Democrats, including our nominee, around by the nose on national security we will forever be taking a back seat to these Spy Now No Consequences Later Republicans. Pathetic in every sense of the word.
Now we wait for Senator Obama to “work” to remove the immunity so Democrats can “seek” accountability. And when he falls short of the votes what then? I suspect he’ll suck it up like all the rest of these pantywaist “war on terror” toadies. Again, not that I expected anything different from him. But I bet his supporters are having a rude awakening of what they got from this guy right now. It’s been quite a week for Senator Obama: walking away from public financing (good move, which I predicted from the start); now a cave in of all cave ins complete with a weasel word fog of monumental proportions.
Not much change so far. Keep hoping!
So, what is there to do about it? Go ahead, write all the letters you want. Obama knows he’s already got your vote. The party is “married to Obama” now, realized one DU poster (grossing me out with the allusion to the idea of “falling in love with” and “coming to” Obama; one blogger even said she feels “a little jilted. Ick.)
As I tried to impress upon vastleft:
If “you go to the polls with the shitty candidates you have, and not the not-so-shitty candidates you wish you had” — and you keeping voting for those shitty candidates, how the hell do you ever expect to get something better than shitty candidates?As someone once said to me: “How are we going to hold their feet to fire if they know they’re going to get our votes no matter what they do?”
…Or how loudly we bitch — and then vote for them anyway?
So, gnash your teeth and rend your garments all you want — Obama’s still got your vote (if not your money and time), and he knows it.
Barack Obama. — Atrios |
Me, I don’t know how to change this. I don’t have an answer. He’s your Golden Child. You know his soul, intimately, in some arcane, otherworldly way the rest of us don’t. You figure out what works.
It’s out of my hands — and has been, from the moment I wasn’t given a choice in the matter of who will best lead us.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Donnie McClurkin, Election 2008, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Insecurity, Israel-Palestine, Military/DADT, Privacy
April 18, 2003
What’s Next — Pat Robertson for AIDS Czar?
Homeland Security Names First Privacy Czar
Nuala O’Connor Kelly, currently the privacy officer and chief counsel for the Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration, has been named the nation’s first privacy czar at the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to joining the government, she was the privacy officer for online ad firm DoubleClick.
At DHS, O’Connor Kelly will be responsible for privacy development and enforcement, including oversight authority of the controversial Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) program at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)….
O’Connor Kelly, 34, saw her share of privacy controversy while she was DoubleClick. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated the company over complaints that DoubleClick was violating the privacy rights of Internet users by improperly sharing personal user data. Class action suits followed the FTC probe.
DoubleClick ultimately settled the lawsuits and eventually satisfied the FTC it was complying with privacy laws. Part of the company’s settlement included creating a privacy compliance division, which O’Connor Kelly ran. …
internetnews.com
April 17, 2003
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under: Homeland Insecurity, Privacy
