Our Latest Stories:

Put on your virtual reality helmet with me and let’s see how the world looks in the virtual reality inhabited by partisans:

If George W. Bush begins using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without a warrant, it is an impeachable offense.

If Barack Obama declares his support for the NSA program, he is a level-headed pragmatist.

If George W. Bush defends violations of the Constitution and of American freedom by saying that he did so in order to use “important surveillance tools,” then he is a fear-monger who lacks the American civic love of liberty.

If Barack Obama defends violations of the Constitution and of American freedom by saying that he did so in order to use “important surveillance tools,” then he has shown a toughness and resolve in denying the Republicans their talking points about Democratic weakness on national security.

If George W. Bush defends the idea of giving telecommunications corporations immunity from court proceedings for violating Americans’ privacy, then he is corrupt, bought out, a tool of corporate interests and covering the posteriors of himself and his allies who would be exposed if the suits made their way to the Supreme Court.

If Barack Obama defends the idea of giving telecommunications corporations immunity from court proceedings for violating Americans’ privacy, then it is part of some secret plan to fool everybody into thinking he’s a corporate stooge so that the powers that be will help him get elected — and then he’ll show ‘em with after he gets in office and completely reverses everything he’s saying right now, ha ha.

Now take off your partisan virtual reality helmet with me, and come back to reality.

Open your eyes and tell me what you see.

There is news out there so important that I feel the need to reiterate what J. Clifford wrote about it yesterday:

Today, the FBI revealed that it plans to begin domestic spying on “American citizens and legal residents“ using the following two-step dance:

Step 1: Racial Profiling, Religious Discrimination, Pre-Crime. Working from extensive data-mining operations that collect information on all Americans’ identity and activities, run statistical analyses to predict which Americans are most likely to become terrorists, based on independent variables such as ethnicity and religion.

Step 2: Wiretap those people who fit the profiling, discriminatory, pre-crime determination. Under current law regarding FISA, amended by the Patriot Act, Americans can be spied on by their government without a probable cause warrant from a judge so long as the government says “a significant purpose” of domestic spying is to collect intelligence on “agents of a foreign power.” Under the new FISA Amendments Act, the judge’s oversight on this determination is removed with the implementation of 67-day-long no-warrant no-judge surveillance of anyone at all whenever a presidential administration says there’s an emergency reason to do so.

A presidential administration can keep the information obtained even if after 67 days a FISA judge says the surveillance was out of line.

Did I say two-step dance? What about a Homeland Security waltz? What do you think a presidential administration would direct the FBI to do with such information?

Step Three: Additions to an extensive data-mining operation that collects information on Americans’ identity and activities, using the results to further interfere in American citizens’ lives and restrict their constitutional liberty.

This is not the liberty my Constitution tells me about.

After two broken promises to give a speech on the subject, Barack Obama finally came out with a written statement justifying his support for George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. Obama declined to answer any further questions on the subjects, and sent out his aides instead.

The following are the core points that Barack Obama made in his written statement, and a rebuttal to each.

Barack Obama wrote, “I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year.”

Scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury and broken glass is better than scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury, broken glass, anthrax spores and plutonium on the side. That doesn’t mean that you should eat the scrambled eggs with arsenic, mercury and broken glass. Saying that one thing is better than another ought not to convince anyone that the better thing is any good at all. Barack Obama knows this. He isn’t stupid. This argument is an attempt to distract people from the FISA Amendments Act. It is not an honest argument.

Barack Obama admits that the FISA Amendments Act is a bad law. So why is he voting for it? In his entire statement, Obama fails to come up with one specific reason that the FISA Amendments Act needs to be passed. Obama only says vaguely that Americans are in danger. Look around you now. Are you in danger?

What would happen if the FISA Amendments Act were not passed? The only thing that would happen is that the legal situation would revert to what it was one year ago, in early July 2007. Were you in special danger then? No, but George W. Bush was in grave legal danger, because lawsuits were about to bring the truth about his illegal programs to spy against the American people into the open.

Why is Barack Obama so eager to help George W. Bush cover up his crimes?

Barack Obama wrote, “The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.”

That is plainly false. The FISA Amendments Act is itself a law that supersedes the authority of the FISA court. It strips power from the FISA court, making them impotent to stop spy programs initiated by the Attorney General.

Furthermore, the exclusivity provision is negated by other provisions in the bill that allow the Attorney General to ignore the FISA court, whenever the Attorney General declares it to be necessary, without any requirement of actual proof that it is necessary.

Barack Obama wrote, “An independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.”

Once again, Barack Obama has made a blatantly false statement. The FISA Amendments Act fails to establish an independent monitor. The FISA Amendments Act establishes the Attorney General as the head of spying operations against the American people. The FISA Amendments Act then establishes the Attorney General as the sole person in the federal government who has the power to declare whether the Attorney General’s own spying programs have been in violation of the law. The FISA court has NO power to contradict the Attorney General’s proclamations.

Besides, courts are not supposed to be mere monitors. They are not supposed to just be watching when crimes take place.

Imagine that a law was passed that declared that courts could only monitor assassinations of citizens conducted by the federal government. That court could observe that the assassinations were taking place, but then could do nothing to stop the assassinations. That’s just the sort of thing that the FISA Amendments Act does to the FISA court - only it’s spying on Americans that’s the abuse, instead of assassination.

Courts are supposed to have the power to make rulings that then have the force of law, compelling members of the Executive Branch to obey. The FISA Amendments Act enables the FISA court only to watch, and not to make rulings that can compel the Attorney General to stop illegal spying.

That makes the FISA court into a rubber stamp. The FISA court will not be capable of protecting the civil liberties of the American people under the law that Obama supports.

Barack Obama wrote, “The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.”

The investigations into abuses into the Justice Department are not at all “a strong example” of accountability. What happened as a result of that Inspectors General report you cite, Mr. Obama? Was anyone actually held accountable? Was anyone at all at the Justice Department fired, or even disciplined, as a result of that report? No. Not at all.

The report merely makes suggestions about reforms that could be made, if the Bush Administration wanted to make them. The reforms are not required, and the Department of Justice now has the power to completely ignore them.

You know what has happened as a result of that Inspectors General report that the Barack Obama campaign says so proudly will serve as a model for investigating George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program? Two newspaper articles about the report were written. Then, 29 blog articles were written about what was revealed in those newspaper articles.

That’s all.

That is what Barack Obama promises as “accountability” for George W. Bush’s program that spied on the personal communications of millions of Americans - Americans who were never even suspected of any crime.

Barack Obama is trying to make his supporters forget that even members of Congress have been unable to successfully investigate the extent of Bush’s electronic spying programs and warrantless physical searches of Americans’ homes and offices. If Congress can’t get the job done, why should we send in relatively powerless Inspectors General to accomplish the task?

The FISA Amendments Act that Barack Obama supports severely restricts investigations into George W. Bush’s programs to spy on Americans. It’s a cover up.

Barack Obama wrote, “Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise.”

What is Barack Obama talking about when he refers to “important surveillance tools?” Think about this for a minute.

That’s right - those “important surveillance tools” are the spying tools of the Protect America Act. Yes, that’s the very same Protect America Act that Barack Obama voted against last year because he said they were unconstitutional and abusive. That’s the very same Protect America Act that Barack Obama, at the beginning of his statement today, said was much, much worse than the FISA Amendments Act.

Now, just a few paragraphs later, Barack Obama is saying that he wants to preserve the spying tools of the Protect America Act.

And what, pray tell, are those spying tools that Barack Obama thinks are so very very important to keep?

1. Electronic spying against Americans on American soil. The government reading your email, listening to your telephone calls, watching where you go on the Internet, and tracking you in other ways through your involvement in other electronic networks. No search warrant. No proof that you’re suspected of any crime. No judicial power to stop the spying.
2. Physical searches of your home or place of work, without you knowing about it. No search warrant. No evidence against you needed. No evidence even of suspicion that you’ve done anything wrong. No judicial power to stop it.
3. People can be thrown in jail for refusing to assist in these search and spying operations.

Numbers 1, 2 and 3 above are what Barack Obama refers to when he talks about “important surveillance tools” from the Protect America Act that he wants to keep in place.

That brings us to Obama’s last substantive justification of his intention to vote for the FISA Amendments Act:

Barack Obama wrote, “I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.”

Pay attention. Pay attention to what Barack Obama wrote in this statement. It’s different from what you may wish it to be.

In this statement, Barack Obama does not promise to stop the spy programs of the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act once he becomes President.

All Obama says is that his Attorney General will do a review of the spy programs, and that his Attorney General will then make recommendations. Barack Obama never says anything about stopping the spy programs.

Barack Obama does not even promise that he will enact his Attorney General’s recommendations.

Also, remember who is the head of the spy programs. It’s the Attorney General. Barack Obama is saying that he will have the Attorney General review what the Attorney General is doing!

Barack Obama does not say that he will attempt to repeal the powers of the FISA Amendments Act. That means that if he becomes President, Obama will retain the power to order the spy on Americans. Even if Barack Obama happens to stop the spy programs, it will be on a completely voluntary basis, and the spy programs will be able to start up again the minute Obama says so.

You may think that Barack Obama is an honorable person who would never abuse these powers, and that he will only use them for good purposes, or that he will decide never to use the spy powers at all.

That is pure guesswork on your part. Don’t guess. Look at what Barack Obama is doing right now. Right now, Barack Obama is voting to give the Presidency, which he soon expects to occupy, essentially unlimited power to spy on Americans.

I don’t think that Barack Obama, charismatic a speaker though he may be, deserves the benefit of the doubt in the case.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that Barack Obama means only the best, and will be a pure, shining diamond of goodness in the White House.

The powers of the FISA Amendments Act that Barack Obama is poised to vote for are nonetheless extremely dangerous. That’s because America is supposed to be a nation of laws that preserve democratcy, not a nation in which good government depends upon the good character of its leaders.

Whether it is under George W. Bush or Barack Obama, America ought not to be allowed to descend into autocracy. I don’t care whether Barack Obama would be a benevolent dictator. I will not stand by silently as the office of the President is given dictatorial powers.

Today’s statement by Barack Obama was not at all reassuring. On the contrary, it confirmed the worst of my fears about Obama’s intentions.

I have not spent seven and a half years struggling against George W. Bush only in order to have a Democratic replacement adopt the worst of Bush’s policies.

I will not let this go. Obama is proving himself to be just as untrustworthy as John McCain.

Obama has broken trust with us, and that in itself is good enough reason to oppose his campaign for President.

The following is a letter/podcast I am sending to the Obama for President campaign today, along with two shiny pennies:

Senator Obama,

When you announced your support for George W. Bush’s FISA Amendments Act and faith-based initiatives, you lost my trust.

A Democrat must always support the Constitution. To support government programs that blatantly violate the Constitution is not an acceptable political maneuver to move to the Center. It is to distance yourself from the center, from the core of what the United States of America stands for. That is what the Constitution is, and it is what you are rejecting.

So, when your campaign requested a donation from me, I thought I would send something appropriate: My two cents.

These days, that’s the only change I can believe in.

Spend it wisely.

Where can Americans of good conscience turn in these times when even Barack Obama, the supposed candidate of change and hope, is embracing the worst policies of George W. Bush - policies like warrantless wiretapping of Americans and “faith-based” religious kickbacks from the government?

Can we turn to the Green Party, perhaps? I don’t see much good support for that. I searched the campaign web sites of the Green Party presidential candidates: Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Johnson and Kat Swift. I expected to see vigorous opposition to the FISA Amendments Act. What better opportunity could there be, after all, for the Green Party to point out that the Democratic presidential candidate is breaking promises, and turning his back on progressive values?

There was nothing. I couldn’t find so much as a peep about the FISA Amendments Act from any of the Green Party candidates. Not one protest.

The Green candidates have had two weeks now to issue a statement on this issue, and they haven’t lifted a finger. They haven’t even written one paragraph, one sentence on their campaign sites to defend the Constitution.

I don’t think we have anywhere to turn. When even the Green Party won’t speak up for the cause of liberty in America, there are only us independent citizens to do the work.

America celebrates the 4th of July by eating hot dogs, and by completely forgetting the liberty for which the Revolution of 1776 was fought. We are losing that liberty, not with a coup d’etat, or even a great debate, but with a mere shrug.

Last night, we reported on rumors that Barack Obama would give a speech at 9:00 AM, eastern standard time, to address the surging rebellion on his own campaign web site by people outraged at Obama’s support for the FISA Amendments Act. The FBI now appears to be preparing to use the FISA Amendments Act as a tool for persecuting ethnic and religious minorities within the United States. The legislation is so broad, and circumvents so many checks and balances within the government, however, that its spy powers could be used against any group that falls out of the favor of the President.

The anti-FISA Amendments Act group now numbers at 14,024, the largest grassroots activist group at BarackObama.com. Yet, now just a couple of minutes before 9:00 AM, I see no information at that group or on any other part of the Obama campaign web site, about a speech to be made. Was this rumor of an Obama concession to the popular uprising among progressives against his FISA Amendments Act nothing but a hoax, or a mistake?

As I write this, it is now 9:00 AM. I can find nothing of any speech. Perhaps Obama is trying to make it low key, if it exists. Perhaps, there will be no speech. Perhaps Barack Obama still is refusing to listen to his supporters.

In lieu of a speech by Barack Obama on this vital subject, I give you a piece of free speech made by Peggy from Shelbyville, Kentucky. Peggy says that she got an email response from the Obama campaign this morning, purporting to explain why Obama supports the FISA Amendments Act.

After reading the Obama explanation, Peggy remains unsatisfied. “This lame explanation was clearly designed for “low information” voters. It is weak sauce and insults the intelligence of any informed citizen,” Peggy says.

She writes her own response to the staff of the Obama for President campaign: “Not buying it. Read the goddamn bill. There is no evidence that the American people have ever been made more secure as a result of this wholesale, warrantless data mining operation. There is no evidence whatsoever that undermining the individual’s right to privacy and ignoring the Constitution has ever ensured safety. But there is a vast amount of evidence that an individual may be at grave risk due to this invasion of privacy.”

Thanks to Peggy, and to all the other members of BarackObama.com who are not sitting down, shutting up and obeying orders. We need more activists like these, Americans who are willing to think for themselves, and hold America’s leaders accountable to the Constitution.

If anyone doubted whether the passage of the FISA Amendments Act ought to be considered a central political issue, this news ought to put a stop to it: Officials within the FBI acknowledge that they are planning to allow government agents to investigate and spy on people based on their religion or ethnicity.

The autocratic absurdity of this new policy came home to me in the following paragraph from an Associated Press article about it. The paragraph needs to be read a couple of times before its implications sink in.

“Currently, FBI agents need reasons — such as evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials say, would let agents open terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, are deemed suspicious.”

First, there’s the obvious problem: FBI agents won’t need to have any reason to investigate anybody. They won’t have to suspect a target of any crime, or even prove that the target has a peripheral connection to somebody else who is suspected of a crime. All agents will need is a dislike for the person - for political reasons, for instance. No evidence that the target has done anything wrong is necessary.

Then, the first part of the investigation begins. Did you notice in that paragraph above how an investigation really begins before an investigation officially begins? It starts with FBI agents “mining public records and intelligence”. That’s an investigation isn’t it? Note that this investigation begins before there’s any suspicion of a crime. It’s an admission that FBI agents will be investigating Americans regardless of whether there’s any suspicion of a crime at all.

What is the scope of this data mining of public records and “intelligence”? Remember that under the Patriot Act, especially it’s expansive reauthorization, the government has been grabbing the private databases of private companies like banks, book stores, car rental agencies, hospitals and even libraries. Then there are the private communications that have been seized. Emails, telephone calls, Internet searches, and all sorts of other communications within the United States have been seized by the government.

Think back now. Think way, way back to 2002. Remember Total Information Awareness? It looks like that death star is fully armed and operational.

The FBI isn’t even considering searching through all that personal private information about you to be an “investigation” any more. It’s just the preliminaries.

Then come the wiretaps. The new FBI plan allows wiretapping of your phones, searching through your email, searching your home. Remember that under the FISA Amendments Act, there’s no need for a search warrant, or to consult any judge. The Attorney General, as head of the FBI, can authorize this kind of investigation, and because of the FISA Amendments Act, nobody will have the power to stop it.

Now let’s go back to the original point: The FBI is planning to let its agents do this to you because of your ethnicity or your religion.

Now do you understand why the FISA Amendments Act is such a terrible law? Now do you understand why any member of Congress who votes for the FISA Amendments Act can rightly be called a traitor to the Constitution and to the cause of freedom in the United States?

In about an hour from now, Barack Obama will give a speech about the FISA Amendments Act. Previously, Obama has said that he will vote for the FISA Amendments Act.

With this dark news about how the FISA Amendments Act will be used to target racial and religious minorities in the United States, will Obama finally come to his senses, and realize that the FISA Amendments Act must be stopped…

… or will he just offer more excuses?

Last week, I indicated in a video that because Barack Obama had not only broken his promise to oppose the FISA Amendments Act through filibuster, but had also turned his back on the Bill of Rights in general and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in particular, Barack Obama had “lost my vote.”

I’ve been feeling that I ought to explain what that means. And I ought to explain what I mean by “means,” too. Obviously it doesn’t “mean” much of anything to Barack Obama’s chances of winning the presidency. No presidential contest in any state has hinged on one vote, so what I do nominally with my vote won’t determine whether Barack Obama is or is not the next president. I’m speaking in a much more limited sense of definition. What do I mean by Barack Obama having “lost my vote”?

I mean this: earlier this year, after Barack Obama had followed through to a considerable extent on his pledge to oppose the FISA Amendments Act, and after he had made a point of highlighting human rights and civil rights and the Constitution in a series of repeated speeches, I had not only decided to case my vote for Barack Obama in the Ohio primary but had decided to vote for him in the general election as well. My mind on these matters was made up, not only because Obama’s pledges put him in a better policy position than Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but because they put him by himself in a good policy position, period. It is about time we had a presidential nominee who makes it a priority to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. You know, that Oath of Office thing.

It still is about time we had a presidential nominee who makes it a priority to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and with Barack Obama playing flip-flop and running to the camp of anti-constitutionalists like um, er, a really fast thing that runs, we’re going to get worse than nothing from Barack Obama. Obama is committing to help enact into law, and then exploit as president, unconstitutional violations of Americans’ civil rights. With that reversal, when I say that Barack Obama has “lost my vote,” I mean that I have lost my decisiveness in support of his candidacy. Barack Obama had my vote in the bag. Now he doesn’t.

I don’t mean that I will vote for John McCain. That would be absurd, considering that John McCain is more anti-Constitutional than Barack Obama. You can pretty much bet that unless a squirrel hits McCain on the noggin with an acorn tomorrow and somehow reactivates his conscience, triggering a wholescale reprioritization of his platform, McCain will not get my vote.

So if I’m not voting for John McCain, and Barack Obama has not won my vote, what could I do? I don’t know what I will do, but here are some possibilities:

1. Vote for Barack Obama. Obama will have to affirmatively do a number of things to win my vote back. Most centrally, he’ll have to somehow convince me that he does not consider the Constitution to be a suggestion.

2. Vote for a third party candidate. Yes, this is an option. But yes, the third party candidate will have to meet the sniff test too. Don’t hold your breath on this option — but I can tell you I’m looking around.

3. Not show up to vote. This is different than voting for John McCain, because voting for John McCain actively negates another person’s Obama vote. Not voting at all has half the effect.

And in the meantime…

4. Not contribute to Barack Obama’s campaign. In the 2004 campaign, I ended up donating more than $1200 to the John Kerry presidential campaign. I haven’t yet sent any campaign contributions to Barack Obama, and I am not inclined to do so now. That’s because:

Regardless of how I vote…

5. I will always criticize Barack Obama when he does something that merits criticism. The sheep-like mentality that we all need to just put our heads down, shut up, bury our doubts and go with the herd is something I struggle against. I am not a robot, I am not a brainless tool, and I believe with a passion that the phrase “Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism” applies to dissent directed at Democratic party figures, too.

Per Se: A phrase used by politicians to signal to supporters that they’re about to break a promise.

Example: “The issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security of the American people.” - Barack Obama, June 2008

If Barack Obama doesn’t announce his opposition to the FISA Amendments Act tomorrow, I will not vote for him in November per se.

Neither will Barack Obama be getting the support per se from the supporter in Indianapolis in swing state Indiana who writes, “I was the first in the neighborhood to place your yard sign firmly in the yard. I proudly wore the logo t-shirt to cast a vote in the Primary. In 2004, I asked everyone if they had seen the Convention speech, and found audio for those who had not to listen, that this man would be different from the leadership we have. So, why do I feel like removing my battered yard sign now?”

Barack Obama’s middle name is not Hussein. It’s Per Se. Barack Per Se Obama.

Yet another website has arisen organizing people in protest against Barack Obama’s flip-flop from opposition to endorsement of the FISA Amendments Act (aka H.R. 6304). You see, a lot of people are upset at Barack Obama’s willingness to toss the Bill of Rights under the bus.

That website, a sort of wiki effort, reveals that the Obama campaign will be making a statement at 9 AM Eastern Time tomorrow regarding H.R. 6304. Look for it, look for what the campaign says… and look for what the campaign doesn’t say, too.

Earlier today, I was surprised to see that the grassroots group at BarackObama.com that opposes the FISA Amendments Act had reached ten thousand members. I didn’t imagine at the time what is about to happen. By the time we wake up tomorrow morning, this insurgent group of Obama activists who are now opposing Barack Obama’s embrace of the FISA Amendments Act will be the largest grassroots group on BarackObama.com.

This group is in open rebellion against Barack Obama’s campaign leadership. They’re not just following along like good little sheep. They’re talking back, loudly, to power.

I wonder if Barack Obama is listening, or if he has merely decided to push the earplugs in a little deeper.

Here’s a chart showing the latest numbers:

What an interesting time it has been for supporters of Barack Obama. Just when they thought that they had secured the Democratic nomination for a progressive candidate, Barack Obama turned coat and ran into the arms of George W. Bush, announcing that he would support the FISA Amendments Act, a law that retroactively legalizes Bush’s programs to engage in massive electronic spying over the Internet and other telecommunications networks against millions of American citizens living in the United States, all without any search warrant, without FISA court approval, and without congressional oversight. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the unconstitutional spying against Americans will continue, with physical searches of Americans’ homes allowed without evidence of any criminal activity as well.

During the primaries, Barack Obama promised to end warrantless wiretapping, to uphold the Constitution, and vote against the FISA Amendments Act. Those promises are a large part of why Obama got the Democratic nomination. Now, Barack Obama has broken those promises.

In response, supporters of Barack Obama have begun a spontaneous grassroots activist campaign to pressure Barack Obama into keeping his promises to his supporters, and voting against the FISA Amendments Act when it comes up for a vote in the Senate on July 8.

Members of this group are withholding support from Obama until he changes positions. No volunteering. No house parties. No donations.

William Zieske from Chicago explains why he has joined the group protesting Barack Obama’s support for the FISA Amendments Act:

“With a single vote, he has made me question his values and views on large corporations abusing individuals; government granting unjust privileges to large corporations, at the public’s expense; the investigation of large-scale government abuses and illegal programs; First and Fifth Amendment rights; and the privacy of citizens’ personal communications and associations. I do not, and will not, support any candidate, even for Water Reclamation District Commissioner, who does not think and act progressively on these issues.

More importantly, the changes in the Obama campaign since he became the presumptive nominee mark him as a true suspect. Perhaps the most dangerous man in democracy is one who garners support on the basis of progressive reform and non-pandering politics, but who is willing to play the pandering game of the centrist politician when the stakes are high.”

Membership in this group against Barack Obama supporters has skyrocketed since its formation. This morning, membership was at 9,000. When I began writing this article, membership was at 10,080. Now, membership is at 10,299. Every minute, another member of the BarackObama.com web site joins this protest group.

That’s right - this protest group has formed on the web site of the Barack Obama campaign itself. Just imagine how many other people there are who have dropped membership in the BarackObama.com web site because of the FISA announcement, or never were members but had planned to support Obama until he betrayed their trust.

Many of these people who have suspended their support for Obama live in swing states. Their withdrawal from the Obama campaign, and their active communication of discontent with Obama’s support for the FISA Amendments Act, could make the difference between success and failure on Election Day.

If Barack Obama fails to get elected, it will be because of his support for Bush policies like the FISA Amendments Act… and it will be his own fault.

You’ve got to be careful when you’re talking about Representative Davis. There are seven Davises in the U.S. House of Representatives, actually, and there’s enough difference amongst them to make general statements about them a risky thing.

For example, the Davises of the House in general seem to have quite a penchant for government programs to spy against the American people. Most of them voted for the FISA Amendments Act, the law that retroactively legalizes Bush White House programs to spy on the personal lives of millions of Americans without any judicial checks.

The following Davises in the House of Representatives voted for the proposed law:

Artur Davis
David Davis
Geoff Davis
Lincoln Davis
Tom Davis

Two out of these five, Artur and Lincoln, are Democrats. So, let it not be said that this is a purely partisan issue. Members of both parties helped to keep Total Information Awareness up and running.

Susan Davis and Danny Davis, on the other hand, defended Americans’ constitutional rights, and voted against the FISA Amendments Act. Representative Danny Davis has made no official statement about the bill, but Susan Davis explains her opposition by stating,

“This bill raises ongoing concerns about civil liberties and the precedent of retroactive immunity. The blanket provisions in the bill would subject Americans to invasions of privacy. And it would keep Americans from learning the truth about the actions of the Administration and telecommunications companies. “

Some people are fine with what Representative Susan Davis referred to as “invasions of privacy”. They don’t mind it if someone is watching their every move. They don’t care if they can never be sure whether what they’re doing is truly personal, or will become part of the public record.

Such people have a right to their strange preferences - so long as those preferences don’t infringe on other people’s rights. I hear rumors that there are exhibitionist clubs in big cities for such people. However, people who like the idea of government spies constantly looking over their shoulders do not have the right to subject everyone else to lifestyle. There’s an amendment to the Constitiution in the Bill of Rights that says so. It’s the fourth one - go look it up.

If the 5 Davises who voted for the FISA Amendments Act wanted to support George W. Bush’s programs to engage in massive electronic and physical surveillance of huge numbers of Americans without any criminal suspicion and without the use of search warrants, they should have introduced a new amendment to the Constitution to repeal the fourth amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Until such a new amendment is enacted, the FISA Amendments Act will be profoundly unconstitutional. It will always be unwise.

For the Davises, the story of the FISA Amendments Act is over. There is no Davis in the United States Senate. So, when the Senate votes on the FISA Amendements Act, no Davis will have a direct say.

So, I call upon all the non-congressional members of the extended Davis clan to restore the honor of their family name. According to the Senate calendar, the Senate will vote on the FISA Amendments Act on Tuesday, July 8.

Please call your senators before then at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to vote against the FISA Amendments Act.

The news is coming out this morning that Barack Obama plans as president not just to maintain George W. Bush’s program of “faith-based initiatives,” but to expand them. Some historical background: Bush’s program expanded upon previous law, under which churches, mosques, synagogues and wiccan covens could already obtain government funds to run social service programs. All they had to do was promise that the programs for which they used government funds wouldn’t be proselytizing programs for the purpose of converting people to their religion. After all, the First Amendment clearly states that the government is to stay out of the business of establishing religions, and shuffling government funds to religious re-education campaigns is just that. As long as religious organizations stayed clear of converting people in the programs the government funded, they long ago were able to take government money for social service programs. George W. Bush wasn’t satisfied with this, so he set up government slush funds with the purpose of funneling money for religious activities that incorporated proselytization as a core element of their social service activities. Constitution, schmonstitution!

The predictable outcome: these government “faith-based” slush funds went disproportionately to Christian proselytizing organizations, and Christian groups to Bush’s evangelical liking especially favored. Non-Christian groups have been shut out. This is what happens when government gets to pick and choose religions to send cash… the religion of the powerful is favored. That’s why it’s a bad idea…

… a bad idea that Barack Obama declares today he intends to expand. Now, Senator Obama places some caveats on his plan in the text of his speech:

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.

and in his campaign’s associated fact sheet on the matter:

Obama’s initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:

==> Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.

==> Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and
cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.

==> Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for
government-funded social service programs.

==> Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.

At first blush, this looks great… but you’ll have to pardon me if lately I don’t consider Barack Obama especially trustworthy. So let’s look again at exactly what Barack Obama says… and what he doesn’t say.

Barack Obama says:

“First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help…federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

He doesn’t say:

“First, if you get a federal grant to run a program, you can’t proselytize the people you help in that program.”

The difference:

Following Barack Obama’s literal words, it is possible that churches could run proselytizing social service programs that use government money to provide a social service program and church money to provide a program of proselytization and religious instruction that occurs right alongside. This is a way for government funds to be used to prop up religious proselytization, since the social service that attracts people to religious institutions in the first place is much more expensive than religious conversion, and the government would pick up that tab.

The fuller question Barack Obama must answer:

Under your plan, will the government give money to religious organizations for programs that incorporate proselytization and religious instruction? Will religious organizations be permitted to operate government-funded secular social service programs and religious conversion programs side-by-side?

Time was, I’d have given Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt on what he meant when he made a declaration. But that was before he broke his core promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So now I want to see Barack Obama spell out the nitty-gritty details of his policy proposals, because those details determine whether First Amendment protections will be upheld in actuality or only in rhetoric.

Given the considerable financial and other parallel support given to Barack Obama by members, a fuller explanation of Obama’s intentions that removes even the appearance of constitutional impropriety ought to be forthcoming.