Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions
NEW YORK - With the health care
debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually
unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting
renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that
civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
When
a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks
of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to
expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have
been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially
strengthened civil liberties protections.
But with the apparent
approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and
over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold
of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary
Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor
changes.
Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop
on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism
investigations.
The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:
National Security Letters (NSLs)
The
FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks,
and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about
their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can
compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
The 'Material Support' Statute
This
provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists,
defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice
to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and
other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of
activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally
further terrorist goals or organisations.
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
This
past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to
conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S.
residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
Asked by
IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other
Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of
the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to "the secret and
hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms –
while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he
speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".
He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.
Zazi
, a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in
September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of
terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended
courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al
Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.
Leahy acknowledged that, in
light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the
tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
Pitts
told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic
events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible
long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."
"In the eight years
since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the
escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid
being accused of being "soft on terror" - brings perceived electoral
benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being
easily sacrificed," he added.
In contrast to the Senate, the
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the
legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10
party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's
controversial surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act, passed by
a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement
and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist
activities, was reauthorised in 2005.
The legislation has been
criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to
civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the
original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions
violating protected rights.
Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a
Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a
law that preserves both our national security and our national values".
The
proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf"
provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an
individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under
surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of
individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under
criminal surveillance procedures.
It was intended to allow the
surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign
governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that
connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that
the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no
evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing
authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf
provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent
citizens.
The proposed new House legislation would also restrict
the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional
Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly
comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue
them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies,
Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks,
and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over
certain customer records and similar information."
Under current
law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs,
and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector
general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of
applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI
policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial
scrutiny of NSL use.
The bill approved in the Senate contains
much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and
is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the
administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be
reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.
House
and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately
and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for
signature.
Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on
Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA
Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that
we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements
for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and
meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."
In
a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little
evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more
secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples
that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate
the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


46 Comments so far
Show AllHello democrats,
are you catching on?
At least Obama is consistent--he never fails to disappoint.
odoco
I detest the way the "Right" has categorically demonized Obama, but I suspect if they used better tactics, more reasoned arguments and unassailable fact rather than so much fiction there would be a general uniting of interest within the masses.
Reminds me of the quote: "I will always cherish those initial misconceptions I had about you."
There's a reason the right attacks Obama relentlessly with nonsense such as birth certificates and being a closet Muslim.
This distracts away from real issues, like Patriot Act renewal.
Make no mistake about it...the Right actually agrees with Obama on most of his major decisions.
Military Commissions, Patriot Act, War in Af/Pak, 40 million new customers for health insurance, expanding the Unitary Executive...
...Obama is accomplishing far more in George Bush's 3rd term than little Georgie could've dreamed!
Yes, yes, yes
it's theater
war criminal=war criminal=war criminal;
bought and paid for war criminal=bought and paid for war criminal=bought and paid for war criminal;
lying bought and paid for war criminal=lying bought and paid for war criminal=lying bought and paid for war criminal.... has a nice smile, though....
and talks real pretty
"This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
So in retrospect 9/11 was a good thing, because otherwise the FBI would not have been able to protect the USA from criminals?
So is Obama paying for healthcare by agreeing to renew the Patriot Act? A bit of political tit for tat? Sickening. Just more and more Big Brother. Where is the money to pay for all the personnel needed to administer these Acts? C'mon, taxpayers, cough it up.
Public Enemy #1 again reveals why he is Public Enemy #1.
I really see little difference between ObamaInc and BushCo when substance is examined. Both are enemies of the commonfolk on a planet-wide basis. On a related note, I find it intriguing that Chairman Mao is being ressurected by the many Chinese against the predictible corruption and grossly unequal outcomes related to capitalism and how China's leaders have used its tools to drive development.
Italy convicts 'U.S. agents' in CIA kidnap trial
November 4, 2009 -- Updated 2126 GMT (0526 HKT)
Italian prosecutor Armando Spataro speaks Wednesday in the court in Milan at the end of the trial.
Italian prosecutor Armando Spataro speaks Wednesday in the court in Milan at the end of the trial.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Suspected U.S. CIA agents ordered jailed for seizing of suspected terrorist in Milan
* Americans are not in custody, but ruling could make them international fugitives
* Case centered on "extraordinary rendition" of Muslim cleric, who says he was tortured in Egypt
RELATED TOPICS
* Central Intelligence Agency
* Italy
ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Nearly two dozen Americans -- most thought to work for the CIA -- were sentenced to five years in prison Wednesday by an Italian court for their role in the seizing of a suspected terrorist in Italy in 2003, the prosecutor in the case told CNN.
The Americans did not appear for trial and are not in custody, but the ruling could effectively make them international fugitives.
The trial was the first to deal with a practice that human rights groups call "extraordinary rendition." They say the United States has often sent suspects to countries that practice torture.
Washington acknowledges making secret "rendition" transfers of terrorism suspects between countries but denies using torture or handing suspects over to countries that do.
The case centered on the extraordinary rendition of a Muslim cleric, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, or Abu Omar.
He was seized on the streets of Milan, Italy, in 2003, transferred to Egypt and tortured, he said. He was suspected of recruiting men to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and was under heavy surveillance by Italy's intelligence agency.
Prosecutors said he was nabbed by a CIA team working with Italian intelligence officials.
The verdict "shows governments and institutions that the fight against terrorism has to be carried out in accordance with the law. There are no shortcuts," Spataro told CNN.
Those who were found guilty were ordered to pay Abu Omar 1 million euros ($1.48 million) and his wife 500,000 euros.
A total of 22 Americans were each sentenced to five years in prison for their role in his abduction. Another -- Robert Seldon Lady, whom prosecutors said was the CIA station chief in Milan -- was sentenced to eight years in jail, prosecutor Armando Spataro told CNN.
Cases were dismissed against three other Americans, including Jeff Castelli, the man assumed to be the CIA station chief in Rome at the time, because they had diplomatic immunity from prosecution. Spataro said he may appeal that ruling.
Cases were also dismissed against the former head of Italy's intelligence service and his deputy because of state secrecy provisions.
Two other Italians were sentenced to three years in jail for aiding the plot.
Sabrina De Sousa, one of the American defendants, was "saddened, angered and dismayed" by the ruling, her lawyer told CNN.
She felt the U.S. government had "stabbed her in the back," Mark Zaid said. "We understand why the Italians did what they did. They were following their laws. But at the end of the day, representatives of our United States government abroad were let down and left alone by their own government."
De Sousa, a career diplomat, is suing the State Department over the case, Zaid confirmed. She has never said she worked for the CIA.
CIA spokesman George Little said Wednesday: "The CIA has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar."
But U.S. officials confirmed to CNN when the case first broke that the CIA was involved in the rendition of Abu Omar from Italy to Egypt. The officials never disclosed the number of Americans involved or their names.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell responded to the verdict as it applied to an Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Joseph Romano III, who was among the Americans sentenced.
The Pentagon had asserted jurisdiction over the incident under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, a position that the Italian minister of justice supported, Morrell said.
"We are clearly disappointed by the court's ruling," Morrell said. "Our view is that the Italian court has no jurisdiction over Lt. Col. Romano and should have immediately dismissed the charges."
The American Civil Liberties Union, a persistent critic of Washington's extraordinary rendition program, demanded the United States match Italy's actions.
"The decision in Italy underscores the need for the United States to hold its own officials accountable for crimes committed under the 'extraordinary rendition' program. It is shameful that the first convictions of this kind came from a foreign justice system, where those convicted are not likely to serve their time," said Steven Watt, staff attorney for the ACLU Human Rights Program.
Italian authorities originally indicted 26 Americans and five Italians in 2007 for kidnapping in the matter.
The Italians included the former head of Italian intelligence, Nicolo Pollari, and one of his deputies. They testified in preliminary hearings that Italian intelligence played no role in the alleged abduction.
None of the Americans is in custody in Italy and the Italian government did not ask for their extradition; they were tried in absentia.
Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer told CNN in the past that the Italian military secret service had approved the operation involving Hassan, and CIA sources who refused to be named told CNN in 2005 that the agency had briefed and sought approval from its Italian counterpart for such an abduction.
The Italian government of the day -- which was led by Silvio Berlusconi -- vigorously denied having authorized Hassan's kidnapping, which it called illegal. Berlusconi has since returned to power.
If you wanted to give Obama a real jolt, just don't buy anything for Christmas except for kids. Than after Christmas just don't buy anything. This is within your power to do and it will send a stronger message than any political vote you might make. Weaken the beast.
Jeevee
RIGHT! AMEN
Jeevee
RIGHT! AMEN
Definitely. Of course, I already do this out of necessity. Obama may also get a major jolt, judging from the fact that his "signature effort" -- insurance reform -- might fail -- which is not a bad idea at all, considering what a bad bill it is, and from what I read today Obama isn't planning on getting involved the effort to pass the bill -- this was from Sam Stein of HuffPo from Gibbs.
I couldn't agree more. They keep telling us our spending is 70% of the ecoomy so let's see if they listen to us when the economy goes down 70%. It's the only real weapon we have...
For "Obama administration" read "Rahm Emmanuel", the real president.
Consistent.
Stealthy Obama, always manipulative in one way or another. The man has got to be one of the greatest demagogues this country has known.
Patriot Act -------- was not that 700 pages long and introduced to Congress a few days after 9/11 making people believe it was written before 9/11?
The only major telecom CEO to refuse to cooperate, with the obviously illegal, under Fisa, domestic spying program,Qwest CEO, was promptly charged with insider trading and recently received 7 million fine for a supposed 2 million gain and six years in jail ( now on appeal).
And Enviormrntal Hero Tim DeChristerfer is still on trial for disrupting an Interior Dept. declared illegal oil lease auction.
Obama only uses his influence to push Congress further right.
Obama is extremely fascistic.
The lines from a Elvis Presley song remind me of Obama:" you read your lines so cleverly and never missed a Q. Honey, you lied when you said you loved me." Obama, you lied when you said you loved America!
He's even MORE of a snake than George II. Is it too early to talk impeachment?
The Patriot Act is not only an oxymoron, it is an abomination that directly violates the wording of one of the Amendments to the Constitution.
Since President Obama wants to make it his own when it could be eliminated without a debate simply by letting it lapse, perhaps it should now be viewed as an "obamanation."
I wonder how the right wing dictator wannabes that started that nasty concept now feel about Obama potentially using the massive invasions of privacy on them?
"tools to protect america" in the meantime, let's not forget what's really going down...:
"The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean by acquiring unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in Colombia...." current u.k independent article on cd;
the actual u.s. airforce quote from t. johnson on znet:
Mission or Major Functions: This Cooperative Security Location (CSL) enhances the U. S. Global Defense Posture (GDP) Strategy which directs development of a comprehensive and integrated presence and basing strategy aligned with the principles of developing relations with partner nations. Palanquero provides an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations!!! throughout South America including CN missions. It also supports mobility missions by providing access to the entire continent, except the Cape Horn region, if fuel is available, and over half of the continent if unrefueled. [i]
The key in the above quote is that "Palanquero provides an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America". What exactly those operations could entail is elaborated on later in the document. "Full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters"[ii] :...
notice the phrase,"our hemisphere"!!1
The more I read the clearer it is that the USA government is anti-American. This cluster of special interests and agendas called government, views Americans as a resource to be controlled and used to the benefit of the USA.
It proclaims to be protecting Americans. Only fools, kind and gentle as they may be, can believe that, for the USA is an idiot that cannot see beyond its own interests.
For heavens sakes just open your eyes and see! The USA is a large, dangerous and cunning beast.
Bust the USA! Put it down.
Prior to the election I used to take a pounding from my friends by not supporting Obama and expressing my sense that he would turn out to be as bad or worse than Bush. Now that their hero has shown his true colors, those same friends are pretending that they, too, "always had reservations" but "didn't want to be negative."
Obama's a pied piper and his every action since assuming office has been to the benefit of corporate elites and to the detriment of the general public. He's just the latest goose-stepping stooge, wrapped in tinsel rhetoric and beige skin, fooling fewer and fewer people every day.
The American political system is a corpse, revivified every couple of years to create the illusion that it still exists. But the reality is that our imagined democratic structures are dead, having been replaced by a corporate-fascist police state.
Everyone I know sees Obama for the compromised con artist that he is. His problem is that he promised big on things he knew he couldn't deliver. As his litany of betrayals continues over the next several months, I could easily see him dropping below 30% in the approval ratings.
I love the comment above about not buying anything. I have been pursuing that course for about six months now and have announced to my family (even the kids) that there will be no lavish Christmas this year. Nothing will bring the fascist demon to its knees faster than a shutdown of buying in a society where about 70% of the economy is tied to consumer spending. This strategy, if it spreads, would do more than any election or revolution to take back the government from the pimps that now own it.
The USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians call Facist Dictatorship?
For the several posters above who advocated a buying boycott as an effective form of protest against "the beast" that the Obama administration certainly is. It's all noble and admirable to sacrifice on your normal (profligate?) spending to send a message, but do you consider that your decisions (including your shopping ones) have consequences that you may not have intended? Fewer toys bought may force toymakers to lay off some of their employees; so the "sacrifice" you are making is not just your own but a perhaps much greater sacrifice forced on someone else who may not be able to buy food for his/her family, never mind a reduction in the usual cornucopia of unwanted toys for your children. I know of course that every useful action has its negative effects, but could one not consider protest solutions
with less "collateral damage" than the Christmas-buying boycott being proposed? Not a rhetorical question (for which I know the answer) but something to think about. (Charles H. Cooley said that wrong thinking is simply incomplete thinking.)
I see your objections, Jerry, and raise them.
A couple of corollary points:
Certainly economic boycott is a time-tested and potentially effective form of non-violent political protest, all things being equal.
Here, all things AREN'T equal. In the present economy, with a predator class of banksters and Elected Misrepresentatives, and a prey class of Everybody Else, advocating a boycott is like advocating symbolic fasting to a population in the middle of a famine. I mean this metaphorically; I know that Gandhi, the all-time personification of fasting for political purposes, lived in a country notorious for its perpetual famine.
Put another way, in this economic briar patch, ordinary people are struggling hard enough, and getting scratched up enough, to preclude the LUXURY of a boycott-- which, as you correctly note, involves self-sacrifice.
Beyond that, the proposed boycott doesn't seem focused enough to serve as a viable stick. It seems to me that a protest has to be sharply defined enough to pop like an old-fashioned flashbulb.
I respect "starve the beast", but it's the equivalent of "keep on truckin'". An economic boycott to force restoration of civil liberties has a formidable cause-and-effect problem to solve.
In a nutshell: do economic boycott advocates really foresee that a generic voluntary belt-tightening, assuming it began tomorrow, will result in Obama tossing down a newspaper and crying out, "My God! What have I done? I've ridden the Unitary Executive hobby-horse over the moon! Now I must man up and begin curing the metastasizing cancer of the Security State!"
That sounds great, but Points A and B haven't been sufficiently connected.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Of course Obama won't change his spots. He's hopelessly corrupt. Isn't that obvious? And I'm not talking about the millions of Americans who are already suffering. I'm talking about organizing those people of conscience who are still doing passably well. I've already convinced several friends, who are definitely not starving, to stop spending.
So long as we keep feeding the beast, we can't expect it to die. Of course, when the beast does die, there's no question there will be even greater suffering on a much wider scale. But the compensations will be the bankrupting the giant corporations, watching the political system collapse in chaos and scandal, and the slim chance that something far more egalitarian can be established on these shores.
I'm reminded of those friends who told me my vote for Nader would be squandered and that the "sensible" thing to do was vote for Obama. "Sensible" measures do not work when you're dealing with sociopaths.
I definitely considered the consequences of a massive belt tightening and I say, bring them on. With hundreds of thousands, perhaps tens of millions thrown out of work as a result, what do you think they will do? I think the time for cautious, milquetoast solutions is long over. The "metastasizing cancer" will not be stopped by aspirin and kumbayah. I'm convinced that unless the entire house of cards falls, there is no chance for any progressive change. Let the phoenix be consumed in the fire so that it can rise again, renewed.
Still Standing: All I'm saying is: just realize what you are doing in bringing on the cleansing fires of devastation out of which the phoenix of a better society can rise. Be sure that you are willing to sacrifice MORE than expensive Christmas presents for your kids, you are willing sacrific your very life and theirs by helping to bring on the starvation that a true boycott (the only kind that could possibly be effective) would bring about. If you're willing to pay THAT price, go for it, it will probably work but you and your family won't be around to enjoy it.
with Bush it was like some one broke into your house and ripped you off....
with Obama its like you let you friend crash at you pad and when you got home from work you were robbed and your buddy had a lot of extra cash.
I think people are gonna be very very angry
EXACTLY.
you put it very well indeed.
bush knifed you frontally...obama does it from behind...
I agree! I am so angry, feel betrayed and very naive!! What was I thinking hoping to close Guantanamo, the SOA, repeal the Patriot Act, end the war in both Iraq and Afganistan. Maybe Obama has gone mad like the rest of the world.
Keep working for peace and justice without looking for a hero to do it for us!!!!
if we admit corporate militaristic fascism, there is only one way to go; which means being willing to face imprisonment, torture and death. Norman Finklestein points out that Gandhi said that non-violent resistance will not work unless we are willing to be killed, and that if someone comes to attack you or your family or your wife, you must be willing to fight. That in the end it is a matter of courage.
The misnamed Patriot Act is so much like Hitler's Enabling Act that when I write about them, most people cannot tell which one I am quoting from.
Remember, no people have ever gotten back a freedom that a government has usurped. At least not peaceably.
Fascists are usually very careful in a democratic society. They use its freedoms to improve their cause. When they have a few little successes, gain a few concessions, they become a little bolder, push the envelope a bit further. Eventually, they gain a slim majority and from there on, it is all downhill.
Enjoy the ride, but the sudden stop at the bottom is a killer!
Obama has broken all of his promises. Transparency? Visitors logs to OUR house, the White House, are still secret, as under Bush. The AfPak wars are increasing, and we are fortifying Colombia to go after Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, and any other country which wants economic independence from us, or who has leaders elected which are not CIA-approved. Remember, we got Bush twice in fraudulent elections....and Obama, a two-year Junior Senator appoints Cheney's Dark-Side General McChrystal to run the war in AFghanistan...all the while, trying to convince Progressives that he is running a "kinder and gentler war", so that the Progressives will feel good about the re-branding of our National Security State under Obama, and their consciences will be eased by their silence, or muted protest, or their "demands" that we leave Afghanistan on a "timetable". We see how well the timetable withdrawal the Democrats championed worked in Iraq. Sure, Guantanamo will not be closed as promised. Instead, we still have hundreds held there, while a few are tried in show trials. This is classic Modified Limited Hangout...give them a bone, and they will forget the big story. The big story is the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe, and the thousands tortured, and murdered there, and in Iraq prisons, and other facilities. Does ANYONE not think that Obama is not simply the slicker face of the same National Security State which has been in place since 1947? Americans should look at the reality of their country with unvarnished, non-rose colored glasses. Only then is change possible. War continues, and increases in the Middle East, and there are still 128K troops there. Obama said he would remove all COMBAT troops...but Progressives heard in their heads that he would remove ALL troops. These words are Psyops, and are designed to fool you. In reality, the Vatican-sized "Embassy" in Iraq will be protected by 58K troops...we have not left South Korea, and we will not leave Iraq...as Alan Greenspan said in his autobiography "Why don't they just admit that they invaded Iraq for the oil?"
is your hope© half-full or half-less?
Change? What change??? Stop lying to the world, Obama. You are a good talker but for the rest...no better than the rest.
The beige Bush again shows his true colors.
Poet
BlackBush strikes Again!
I say, let's join up with the mad hatter's tea party morons and demand to see his original birth certificate.
Let's flush this turd. And let's keep flushing until the Washington bowl is clean.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
You mean tyranny such as the trail of tears??
Oh how history repeats itself AND forgets!!
Obama is a good boy, he does as he is told. We may not agree, but what can we do about it.He will be in the next election probably, so remember his promises and deceit.
that, friend, smacks of looking back!
we must look only ahead.
forget even the present.
The USA Patriot Act is to protect the Christo-Corporate Thugs who run this Fascist Dictatorship from We-The-People.