I alluded to this yesterday, but didn't have confirmation.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/3/14554 7/1055

Charlie Crist is getting married !!!!

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/593 449.html

The Nation is reeling from eight years of the complete disregard of the most precious treasure we posess, the Constitution of the United States of America.  In that time many have sacrificed all they have because they thought that document actually means something.  There are those that have thought sacrificing some freedom for security was the only thing to do when faced with attacks on our home.  On that score the wise words of Franklin are very clear "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".  

Senator Obama you must look to our Founders for the wisdom to guide your stand on many issues.  Yes they owned slaves but they had one thing sorely lacking in politicians today, courage.  In their time they stood up to the greatest empire of the day to create this imperfect nation.  Each one of them did so with a real threat of death for their actions.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he didn't know if he would live or die for his treason against England.  Indeed there were times when it looked as if they would all surely hang when the course of that War was going against the Colonies.  They could hear the thunder of the cannons and in their own homes they could see the price of freedom.  It was no distant conflict but one that took place on their front doorsteps.

Senator Obama there are many issues on which to compromise but the Constitution is not one of them.  I hope you spend this July 4th in deep reflection on what this day truly represents.  Perhaps a solitary walk thru Arlington Cemetary to commune with those that have sacrificed all for that document.  Yes there are the fireworks, the barbeques, family and friends, and all the celebration.  Today will also be a day when a soldier will be wounded or die somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan.  They will do so because they believe the Constitution makes this nation worth it.

Amendment [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Senator Obama rethink your incomplete thought on FISA and don't protect those that have violated our rights under the Constitution.  (They don't deserve immunity or anything else.)  Above all have the same courage as our brave soldiers when it comes to defending our most precious treasure which is the very essence of our nation.  Rise above political calculation, or Party and become the first Statesman our nation has seen in a very long time.  The People need and want a true leader this time for the very hard path which is ahead.

Have a great July 4th

Earlier this week, Donzella James and David Scott met for what will be their only debate at the Atlanta Press Club studio.  While neither one had a good handle on the overly restrictive format, the message was clear - if you're a progressive support Donzella - if you're a Bush Dog, support Scott.  One caveat: Donzella did offer qualified support for more oil drilling - kinds wish she hadn't.  The realities of global warming make that needle impossible to thread, IMHO.  I'm still behind her, though!

Finally, a word of apology: I've never worked with an embed code, so all the video is through links.

There has been a lot of talk this week about Obama's sudden lurch to the right. While it is fun to watch his supporters run around waving their hands in the air and crying, we must not become too complacent.

Most of this week's accusations of flip-flopping have been a little weak on substance. Guns, no real change, but we can still throw it in there to add to the count. The same holds true for abortion, death penalty, and NAFTA. I wish we had stronger claims for a "lurch" to the right on these, but maybe if we keep bringing them up no one will really notice.

The biggie is FISA. Hopefully, no one will notice that the bill in question was passed in the House and not in the Senate. They also might not notice that Obambi said he was still against immunity and would work to remove it in the Senate version. Don't give up, guys and gals, keep pounding on this one. It's our best shot.

(cross-posed at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Last week the blog Clintonistas for Obama was locked by Blogger.  The following message was provided:

Dear Blogger User,

This is a message from the Blogger team.

Your blog, at http://clintonistasforobama.blogspot.com /, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

To unlock, a code had to be entered to request an editorial review from a live person, which took four days.  I also would like to preface that C4O's mandate is as follows...

We agree with Hillary Clinton, we support the progressive values she supports, and we share her dedication to making this nation better... That's why we support Barack Obama for President! :-)

The locking of the blog puzzled the group that posts there, and personally made me suspicious since C4O is the furthest thing from being spam.  So I decided to investigate this a bit further.  What I discovered was shocking and disturbing to be frank.  

My investigation began with a Washington Post article that exposes that the Obama smear emails originated on Free Republic. No shocker there. Freepers have been leaders of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy since its inception and full of smears, slime and innuendoes, especially about the Clintons.

But after the article was published, a Freeper, charged that the WaPo reporter has exposed the identity of anonymous posters in the past, and the WaPo article also "exposed" ordinary people who dared to think the rumour was important, but who denied being involved in the spamming.

The author is quite paranoid about it:

The article Mosk wrote today purports to be about efforts to track down where the `Obama is a Muslim' allegations began. However, it is actually a warning shot across the bow to opponents of Obama that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Obamessiah.

While it literally pains me to agree with a Freeper, is this what is going on?  Shutting down free speech online?  Finding the name and address of people who post anonymously on websites?  Reporters harassing them and exposing them to ridicule?  I am embarrassed to say that I have witnessed behaviour akin to this on 'progressive' blogs as well.

Which brings me back to C4O.  It seems that there is a concerted effort amongst a group to shut down political criticism of Obama.

Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content.  And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.

Several sources, including Blogspasm report that several blogs that have been shut down by Google that are critical of Obama, and the suspicion is that Google is being manipulated to shut down the opposition.

Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds, but when people attack and try to shut down sites critical of a political candidate - we all have to worry.

Is this really what some people have become, bullying and intimidation to fall in line with what is 'acceptable' discussion?  

Just wanted to wish everyone a happy weekend.

At the end of the day, no matter what our differences, there is one thing we all have in common. We are all Americans.

Happy and safe holiday.

What a good day to celebrate.

12 dogs and a blog

The section of Obama's website titled "Bringing Our Troops Home" reads thusly:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Why is it important to highlight the keyword "will"? Simple logic.

If it were true that Obama had always been willing to and open about consulting with generals on the ground before taking a stance on Iraq, then he would have used the word "might", since it would be dishonest to promise immediate withdrawal without first asking said commanders.

I "might" remove our troops". I "might" remove 1 or 2 brigates, etc. Why? Because if it all depends on the commanders on the field, then nothing "will" happen for sure yet.

One friend tries to prove to me that barackobama.com does cite an instance where Obama speaks about consulting with these chiefs, but this is false, as I explain below:

Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.

This quote says NOTHING about consulting with military commanders. It simply states the obvious fact that the immediate redeployment would be directed by those who are paid to direct.

There is a big difference between telling someone to direct, and consulting with that person about the best course of action.

It would not be the same, for instance, for George W. Bush to ask Donald Rumsfeld to direct torture against terrorism suspect, as opposed to consulting with Rumsfeld, who may or may not approve of the action.

Figuring this out is no brain surgery. In the primaries, liberals are the main target. During general election season, moderates and some conservatives are the price, as they constitute a large segment of voters. Obama, a typical politician, has acted accordingly.

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.