Progressives, Conservatives, Ron Paul - Save the Constitution

tgs1952

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday October 21, 2007 · 5:28 PM PDT

2007/10/21 · 17:28

Yesterday, I published a diary comparing the hysteria over a judge ruling the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional with the seeming indifference that lawmakers and pundits have accepted the gutting of the constitution by the Bush admin. Tonight, I found there is an effort, supported by conservatives and progressives and introduced by Ron Paul to address this indifference.

Via Glenn Greenwald

Two organizations, one of conservative orientation, American Freedom Agenda, another founded by progressives, American Freedom Campaign, are advancing a 10-point agenda for saving the consitution.

A bill introduced last week in the House by Ron Paul seeks to put this agenda into law. Whatever you think of Ron Paul, he is surely right on this one.

So, who are these organizations?

tgs1952

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday October 20, 2007 · 2:47 PM PDT

2007/10/20 · 14:47

Last night I, like quite a few others, I would imagine, followed links from Glenn Greenwald and other liberal bloggers and sent Christopher Dodd a letter of support for his principled stand on retroactive immunity for the telecoms and the constitution in general. He had not been my candidate of choice, but I had heard some things I liked in recent weeks.

I received a follow up email shortly thereafter with the lead sentence:

"Are you willing to go to the mat to restore the Constitution?"

Of course, 'going to the mat' meant contributing to Dodd's campaign. I did, and I feel fine about it. Feel free to do the same.

No doubt, given the high profile bloggers alerting their audiences to Dodd's stand, his campaign got a good injection of cash and hence 'vital spirits'. And good for him.

But it is weird isn't it? A second tier Democratic presidential candidate getting traction because he is willing to go 'to the mat' to restore the constitution.

Do you remember some years back when a judge in California ruled that the 'pledge to allegiance' is unconstitutional because of the phrase 'under God'? I do.

tgs1952

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday September 02, 2007 · 1:11 PM PDT

2007/09/02 · 13:11

Matt Stoller posted the following from The Jewish Week:

Obama Wants Divestment Issue For His Own

With Jewish campaign money more critical than ever and Jewish votes potentially important in a handful of key states, most of the 2008 presidential candidates are trying to carve out pro-Israel positions they can call their own.

Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) has latched on to the burgeoning effort to increase the economic pressure on Iran through divestment. But Obama's strong effort on behalf of a major divestment bill is being thwarted by an unnamed Republican senator - and Obama forces say the real culprit is the Bush White House.

The controversy involves the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, which would require companies with more than $20 million invested in Iran's energy industry to divest those funds. The measure would also make it easier for state and local governments to purge their own portfolios of Iran investments.

Obama Continues the Drumbeat for War with Iran

tgs1952

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 05, 2006 · 8:00 AM PST

2006/03/05 · 08:00

There definitely is a non-racist argument against the UAE ports deal. However, that argument would take us to places that no Democrat or Republican would want to go - questioning the basic premises of the Washington Consensus - neo-liberal globalization of the "flat-earth" variety. It so is much easier for lawmakers, especially Democrats, to make cheap political points with Arab-bashing. The Washington Consensus is now a religion in DC and no Democrat wants any part of questioning its assumptions. They just don't want to go there. After all, it may lead to blocking deals like this: From Haaretz

U.S. panel objects to software handover to Israeli company

William Reinsch, a former senior U.S. official who participated in reviews under former President Bill Clinton, said the Israeli sale involves more dire security issues than the administration's recent approval for a Dubai-owned company to take over significant operations at six major American ports.

How will Hillary and Chuck react to that one?

RSS

Progressives, Conservatives, Ron Paul - Save the Constitution

Like the Constitution? Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Obama, Israel and Iran

Another Security Risk?