Progress Now Action

Last fall, after the deal was announced, the State Department said that it had tried to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the contract with Kurdish regional authorities but that the company had proceeded "regardless of our advice." Although Hunt Oil's chief executive has been a major fundraiser for President Bush, the president said he knew nothing about the deal.

Yesterday, however, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released documents and e-mails showing that for nearly four months, State and Commerce department officials knew about Hunt Oil's negotiations and had told company officials that there were no objections. In one note, a Commerce Department official even wished them "a fruitful visit to Kurdistan" and invited them to contact him "in case you need any support."

That guidance contradicted the administration's public posture. The Bush administration made an Iraqi national petroleum law, which has still not been adopted, a top priority last year in the hope it would more tightly bind the country's regions together and open the way for international oil companies to invest in much larger oil fields south of Iraq's Kurdish region. The State Department said, and continues to assert, that it opposes any contract with a regional Iraqi authority in the absence of a national petroleum law.

Although this isn't the same contract that Schaffer was involved in, it was in the same period of time and in the same place, and all of these contracts are now the subject of this growing dispute between the Kurdish Regional government and the Iraqi federal government. Most experts regard the settling of the issue of Iraq's oil development and revenue as critical to the country's stability, a key condition for eventual American success and widthdrawal.

Obviously, the first question for Schaffer is whether or not he was similarly "discouraged" by the State Department from pursuing local oil contracts in Iraq without laws in place nationally yet to accomodate them. Then, somebody should ask him how this deal he negotiated with the Kurds squares with official American policy of wanting a national oil development strategy for a unified Iraq.

In fact, a whole slew of questions along the same rather distressing line present themselves, for Schaffer especially given the displeasure voters seem to have these days for the words "oil company" or "Iraq war." Imagine the reaction to putting them together, say, "Bob Schaffer cared more about his oil company than he did about winning the Iraq war."

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

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

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

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

Glenn Greenwald states succinctly:

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

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

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

Blue America Whip Count Call Tool.

Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake.com, writes: 

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

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

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

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

mcjoan, Dailykos.com, writes:

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

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

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

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

The wiki-hub for more action items.

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

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

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

This is legal absurdity:

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

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

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

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

For those folks questioning the need for the COGCC's new proposed protections for our mountains, rivers, communities and wildlife, read no further.

Those two spills occurred about two to three weeks after one man went to the hospital after drinking his cabin’s spring water, which was allegedly contaminated by a release from area drilling operations.

One of the discharges reportedly caused water contaminated by oil and gas waste to emanate from several springs in the area of Cascade Canyon, northwest of Parachute, and to flow into nearby tributaries, according to state records.

A sheen was visible on water discharging from the spring, according to the NOAVs

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

We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Reich wrote in 2001 about "the center": 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorado voters prefer Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain for president by a five-point margin, a lead also found in three other swing states in a new poll released today. . .

[T]he poll also showed Democrat Mark Udall leading over Republican Bob Schaffer in the Senate race by a 10-point margin, with 12 percent of voters undecided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama- 

Then:

We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants.

Now:

So I support the compromise . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACT NOW to persuade Senator Obama:

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

866-675-2008 option 6

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

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

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

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A study published in Health Affairs (6-10-08) documents a sharp (60%) increase in numbers of underinsured between 2003-2007. Underinsurance rates nearly tripled among those with incomes above 200% of poverty. Consequently, 42 percent of U.S. adults were under- or uninsured in 2007, reporting high levels of access problems and financial stress.

Even among those with incomes over 400% of poverty, 15% are underinsured. The study indicates that the move toward greater consumer cost-sharing for minimum benefit insurance policies in recent years is pushing millions of insured non-elderly adults toward spending large shares of their incomes on health care. The clear impact is to increase the share of families at risk for medical debt and loss of savings for retirement, college, or other long-term needs.

Our current insurance system is working well only for the wealthy, who can afford high costs. Politicians' promises that "you can keep the insurance you have" also apply to the wealthy.  Read the Report

Following is a 650-word piece I wrote about the failure of profit-centered health care that has been picked up by several newspapers around the state.

                              Failure of U.S. profit-centered health insurance

Spending almost twice as much, the U.S. has worse health outcomes than other industrialized nations. Uniquely, U.S. health care is dependent on over 1200 for-profit health insurances, functioning as gatekeepers. Underwriting – the art of risk evaluation and avoidance – insures profits by covering the healthy and rejecting everyone else as a "pre-existing condition."

Profit is a perverse incentive for quality health care: imagine for-profit fire or police protection. "Market-driven" health care treats health as a commodity, to be negotiated like a car or a house. The free market has also spawned "designer hospitals," offering only the most profitable specialties, e.g., cardiac procedures, and eliminating less profitable services, e.g., emergency and mental health.

No reform proposal by current presidential candidates addresses the failure of the private health insurance industry, characterized principally by decreasing benefits and greater costs and risks shifted to consumers. In turn, more are subjected to underinsurance and unpaid medical bills – now the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. Premium increases of 87 percent over 6 years have outpaced both cost-of-living and median family income increases.

Incremental reform proposals demonstrate lack of political will – the same failure to confront corporate profit-taking by insurance and pharmaceutical industries that wrote Medicare prescription drug reform with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines.

Commercial health insurance is the 800-pound gorilla, responsible for over 25% of health care dollars siphoned to excessive administrative costs, lobbying, marketing, CEO salaries and profit-taking: $30 billion annual health insurance profits; $32 billion insurance underwriting and marketing costs (McKinsey Group, 2007).

Gaming the system for profit has given rise to the annual $20 billion business of "denial managment" – health insurance middlemen who search claims for excuses to delay, deny or renege on reimbursements.

Responding to double-digit premium increases, more employers are opting to move employees into underinsurance – high-deductible catastrophic plans. Simultaneously, the American Hospital Association reports that both family out-of-pocket health expenses and unpaid medical bills have risen approximately 60% over a decade – still more costs ultimately shifted to taxpayers and consumers.

Notably, more than 20 federal and state studies since 1990, including the 2007 Lewin Group evaluation in Colorado, have demonstrated that single-payer health insurance is the only reform model that can both save money and provide comprehensive health care benefits for all. Indeed, the single payer model is the only truly efficient, equitable, and sustainable financing system, enabling universal coverage by spreading risk across the entire population.

Contrary to assertions by the "free market" choir, only single payer insurance permits true choice of pubic and private providers; private insurance is limited to "in plan" doctors. Only single payer provides comprehensive benefits and protection against medical bankruptcy.

Rather than comprehensive health care reform, most current proposals revert to a Massachusetts-style nostrum, preserving insurance profits and requiring an individual mandate to purchase minimum-benefit insurance, subsidized by taxpayers as needed. It is a formula for continued inflationary consumer health costs and decreasing benefits.

National single payer bill, HR676, calls for a progressive 3 to 4 percent employer and employee payroll tax to replace all health deductibles and premiums. Full-coverage costs for a family of four earning $40,000 annually would drop to $110 a month, from recent levels of $273/month for employer-sponsored coverage, or $489/month for an individually-insured family (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007).

A political class dependent on corporate money (and privy to 70 percent-taxpayer-subsidized health coverage) sidesteps meaningful reform. Nevertheless, polls by Pew and others have revealed increasing numbers – 54 to 65 percent of people – support a national single-payer health care plan. A recent survey reports that 59 percent of U.S. physicians now support national health care, up 10 percent from 2002.

A grassroots movement and political reforms, including publicly-financed campaigns, may be necessary to instill the political will for meaningful reform. We have everything to gain from quality-, saftey-centered universal single payer health care to replace U.S. dependence on profiteering health care gatekeepers.

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

From Associated Press writer Liz Sidoti opines:

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

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

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

The opinion piece concludes with:

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

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

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

In an article in The Denver Post yesterday, Aldo Svaldi laid out some interesting information about the reasons why our newspapers are slowly consolidating into a few large hands.

Print newspapers' advertising sales are expected to drop $4.7 billion this year, down to levels last seen in 1996, Deutsche Bank analyst Paul Ginocchio recently predicted.

. . .

Publishers can pursue several strategies to avoid default, including selling off assets, raising outside capital or cutting costs to boost their cash flow.

The second part of this story is the impact this kind of change has on democracy. As our newspapers, radio stations and TV stations have gone from many to few, so have the perspectives that are critical in a democracy.

Since 1995, the number of companies owning TV stations has gone down 40%. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clear Channel has been able to go from the previous 40 radio station limit to owning over 1,200 stations nationwide.

The result has been infotainment, less local news and much of the same pre-packaged content being consumed all over the country.

Although there are real economic reasons for these vast changes, diversity in media ownership has to be a priority.

Ownership limits have to be restored and communities need to find innovative ways to create and maintain local media.

This is where you do something about it.

Sorry for the cross-post.

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

Read it here. 

Sellout!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betrayal.

A stab in the back to the Constitution.  

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

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

Call Obama's office NOW:

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

866-675-2008 option 6