O is for what "change"? Change we cant trust, plus

• Educating the GOP - sm
  • Senator Obama was a paid employee, - his job was that of a
    • That's right. He was paid but he - mae
    • Your point? nm - oldtimer
      • He wasn't doing this just out of the - another oldtimer
  • Condense please! - mt
    • You have way too little time for information. - Takes less than 3 minutes to read this. sm
      • Go educate yourself. I used to be uninformed too, - -informed enough now to NOT vote for O. nm
        • O is for what "change"? Change we cant trust, plus - stealing from rich to give to poor -pathetic.nm
          • Sure as h--- can't trust McPain. - mae
            • And with Obama we will have Washington... - sam
              • And that's the problem...I have no - mae
          • Exactly...basic tenet of socialism. - sam
            • Last-worditis. - nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.

Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed.  Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.  

You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception.  You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate.  But, you make your choice.  You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK.  I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do.  Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed.  We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.

Here is the dividing line, folks.  We are at a crossroads in our history.  The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."

Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow.  It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country.  If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he.  One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word.  That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar.  May He have mercy upon your soul.  As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt.  Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party. 

OBAMA'S 'CHANGE': BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC Washington INSIDERS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN 

Published on DickMorris.com on November 7, 2008
Printer-Friendly Version
What's with Obama's choice of old-time Clinton cronies and recycled Washington insiders to run the transition to his new politics of change?

Can't the anti-Washington insiders President-elect find anyone who isn't a Beltway has-been?

Judging by the appointments to his transition committee and leaks about possible top staff and Cabinet choices, Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.

Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing business.
 But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune. As president-elect, he's brought back the old Washington hacks, party regulars, and Clinton sycophants that he so frequently disparaged. Like Jimmy Carter, the last President who ran as an outsider, Obama has reached out to the same old folks who dominate the Democratic Party and represent the status quo.

His Transition Committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton Administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The Chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton's Chief of Staff. He presided over the outrageous last minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-beltway and make-no-waves.

Then there's Carol Browner, Clinton's competent former EPA Administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She's Madeline Albright's partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Browner brought Downey to meet with Senator Chuck Schumer to plead Dubai's case. Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai's position. He's also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, paid half a million to try to cover their rears on the subprime mortgage mess. Is his change?

Federico Pena was Clinton's Secretary of Transportation and of Energy. The President felt he was unduly soft on Air Florida after their crash and lost confidence in him. Now he's back as a Transition Committee member.

Bill Daley, Clinton's former Secretary of Commerce and the brother of the Mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democratic establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae Board and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren't these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?

Larry Summers, President of Harvard and former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury is not exactly an outsider either. He's also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.

Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?

Obama has named one of his big bundlers - Michael Froman, an executive at Citigroup. Is this supposed to symbolize change? 
 
Obama's choice of a spokesperson for the transition is also surprising; hers' is definitely not the face of reason and new politics. Stephanie Cutter is the brash and combative former Clinton, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy mouthpiece. The liberal DailyKos.com once described Cutter as "a moron to the nth degree" when she tried unsuccessfully to force the New York Times' Adam Nagourney to treat her unsolicited email criticizing Howard Dean as "background" without mentioning her name.

Speaking of brash, Rahm Emmanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, makes Cutter look timid. Rahm is also a former Clinton White House staffer - and a very obnoxious one. He spent his White House years leaking to the Washington Post whenever he didn't like what the President was doing.  Even Bill Clinton stopped trusting him. Any hopes of Obama keeping his commitment to reach across the aisle would go right out the window with Rahm's appointment.  Instead of extending a hand to the opposition, it would be like raising just one finger. And Rahm's strident demeanor laced with the 'f'  word in every sentence will do little to elevate the bipartisan dialogue in Washington.

Christopher Edley, another member of the transition team, is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He's a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under Clinton and his wife, Maria Echaveste was Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.

Transition committee staffer Christine Varney was a Federal Trade Commissioner under Clinton and worked in the White House.

Throughout the early debates, Obama criticized Hillary as part of the inside-the beltway establishment that needed to go. But now he's reaching out to these exact same folks.  Some change.

...Bush remains "The Decider."  The question is, will Bush leave when it's time, or will he hijack the country, declare martial law and promote himself to "The Dictator," which he "joked" about on three different occasions.  He also giggled about World War III, and he stated back in 1999 (TWO YEARS BEFORE 9/11) that if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

the stuff just mounts up.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/15/top-us-communist-says-elect-obama-and-change-the-world/

Yeah - I know "everyone does it", but this was all supposed to stop under Obama, remember?  Lobbying and all of that?  Corrupting the system for bucks? 

Remember?

I do.  I also predicted Obama would be as bad as any of the rest of them.  Given his promises, though, he is much, much worse because he's a liar.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=adfv4RHV3Kmk

and what do you REALLY mean by your reply??

McCain flapping his wings and crowing about "when I was in the Hanoi Hilton," etc.etc, completely turned me off.  Not that I didn't and don't respect his service to the country, I was already aware of it and his constant crowing made it sound a tad too much like bragging or tooting his own horn for my liking.  Then when he appointed Palin as his running mate, that REALLY blew it.

Now about Palin.  The fact that she has no "experience in Washington" is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.  I have called her an "airhead" and continue to do so.  Is she really an airhead?  None of us really know.  Her speech at the Republican convention was obviously scripted. She delivered it well.  Then they would not let the media at her for (wishfully) unscripted interviews until they had had at her for brainwashing.  Then they set her out as a pit bull attacking Obama...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE.  She continues with her pre-programmed speeches.  She might be the sweetest cookie on the sheet but we'll never know.  She ALLOWED herself to be programmed into what she is.  A reformer?  I think not.  Had she have been a true reformer, once she was appointed, she might have come out swinging with something like, "look, folks, I'm running on the Republican ticket but I don't agree with them and I don't agree with the Democrat leadership either.   Here is what I will TRY to do for you......"  It would have given the RNC heart failure but I, for one, would have voted for her,  not McCain.  As I see it, Palin=McCain=Bush and we don't need 4 more days of Bush policies, much less 4 more years.

It was not the LGBT community's idea to put this to a vote.  Why would you think that they would do that when they are an obvious minority?  That idea came from evangelicans, and the advertising before the vote was bought and paid for by the religious community.

Just keep in mind...if they had brought the subject of whether or not women had the right to vote in this country to a popular vote, it probably would not have passed. 

charmingly when someone puts one of the silly distraction issues to him.  He  brushes it off and continues to work on plans for correcting the financial disaster brought about by McClain's deregulation legislation with Phil Gramm, ending the senseless war, and the dozens of other serious issues that we are facing.

You know, Sam, I don't know if Obama is trustworthy or not.  I don't know him and I don't know John McCain.  I think we would all do well to keep an eye on the direction of our country.  I really, really thought McCain would end up in the White House but with the landslide electorate vote I don't see any way that could possibly happen now.  Maybe it would be a good idea to get to work on doing away with the electorate.  The popular vote should be enough.  It appears to me that elections are decided really just by a few states.

Sooooooo I'm not really sure that we have time to worry about whether we trust the new president or not.  I don't trust any politicians but the cards have been dealt and there's plenty we all need to do.

SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not

The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security

Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...

Posted By Sibel Edmonds On 4th May 2009 @ 13:41 In Dennis Hastert, NSA, National Security, Mainstream Media Failure, Accountability, U.S. House, FBI, Henry Waxman, U.S. Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Legacy, Jane Harman | 54 Comments

Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds

I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."

The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results [1] highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.

The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations [2] regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.

Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...

Hastert Redux

I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article [3], which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.

Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported [4] that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'

In a recent article [5] for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."

And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"

Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.

I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal [6], to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal [7]; from his 'Land Deal' scandal [8] - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal [9].

All for One, One for All?

How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.

Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:

In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF [10], where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.

I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.

In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'

What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit [11] of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.

And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.

This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'

Rotten at its Core

Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.

Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported [12], albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped [13] by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.

Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.

Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'

We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'

But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.

Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.

As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.

And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas [14] they are serving as a mouthpiece for.

Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.

Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.

Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.

I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.

These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.

Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers

==

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes [15], a detailed feature in Vanity Fair [16] and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG [17]. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. [18]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com

URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117

URLs in this post:
[1] results: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p...uspo.html.com/
[2] revelations: http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
[3] article: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[4] reported: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...r-turkey-2009-
04-10.html
[5] article: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00016/
[6] scandal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...l_officia.html
[7] scandal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...son/index.html
[8] scandal: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1740900.shtml
[9] scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/wa....html?_r=2&hp
8;ex=1160020800&en=a3fbb0550d8f4163&ei=5094&partne r=homepage
[10] SCIF: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=55745,00.asp
[11] FBI's pursuit: http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/PressRelease-March5-07.htm
[12] reported: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...549069,00.html
[13] dropped: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_dropped.html
[14] agendas: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/articl...orter-goss-fin
ger-jane-harman
[15] lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in526954.shtml
[16] feature in Vanity Fair: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[17] articles here at The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=58
[18] National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.: http://nswb.org

The choices suck.  But I think Obama could do the least harm, begin facing the pay off of debt to china and rebuild the military, bring the kids home and let them get on with their lives before they are jaded.

Sam, honestly, I want this country to thrive and I mean you too as I am guessing you are a middle income American.

You are not going to find the perfect president.  Lower your expectations and focus on your wallet.  Remember how good you feel with a huge savings?  And remember how you feel (most can) when the CCs are maxed?  Well, the credit cards are maxed.

The young people want Obama.  We already blew it for them.  Give them what they want since they will suffer the most from the events during the course of the last 8 years.  If you are over 45, your have reached your peak.  They deserve a life equal to ours.  We owe that to them and we cannot let policiticians and wealthy delusional people take the country out from under them.  They deserve that much. Don't you realize the children know what is going on?  The felonious activity, the sexual indiscriminations, the lies, the deviousness - all by paid elected public officials who are already paid decent wages. 

Now the country is a mess and the leaders are to blame.  If you want to give up your quality of life so the Iraqi people have the ability to vote ::rolls eyes:: they most probably ended up dead or refugees in a long line of them, heading for Syria.

Something stinks in the republican party.  I cannot put my finger on it but my best guess is that it has been hijacked by ruthless businessmen.  My thought is, get the party straightened out and then return to the race in 2012, repubos. You religious folks surely see the lies and feel the disappoint.  Along with the insecure feeling just knowing that your leaders have their own agenda and making the country stronger (and not AL queda weaker) was not on their list of things to do.  A heist of historic proportions have taken place and you repubos need to face up to it and find better leadership in your communities.  Democrats are pretty solid from what I am seeing.  They keep each other in check along with the media with the exception of Fox news, of course, the GOP propaganda machine.  This isn't about you people, this is about the kids.

the fact that this is a real "crisis".  Don't want to allow Bush to force congress into another debacle like the funding for the war before he is dragged from the WH kicking and screaming.  McCain is asking for time out so he can rest and catch his breath.