aFlickringLight weblog

In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States, an initiative that became known as the Patriot Act saw its creation. Spearheaded by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act enabled government agencies and agents much looser means of obtaining information and carrying out missions. The FISA courts, clad with concrete walls and windowless rooms deep within guarded government buildings, became the outlet for these actions. Agencies received approval for warrants and wiretaps, among other things, under the federally sealed authority of these courts. These were the channels authorized by the Patriot Act for receiving such approval and warrants. However, as the Patriot Act was set to expire, and members of the United States government sought its re-enactment, an internal investigation was held to gauge the Patriot Act’s effectiveness and legality. Led by Inspector General Fine, government agencies such as the FBI were found to be ignoring the channels provisioned by the Patriot Act in seeking “legal” warrants. Often serving the telecommunication companies with demands for wiretaps sans warrants, civil liberties were put in question and the legality of the governments and the telecommunications actions were beginning to be questioned.

Due to a multiplicity of factors, the major telecommunication companies have long had to comply with and provide access to governmental institutions for wiretaps. Perhaps out of fear or some mutually agreeable terms between the telecoms and the government, the telecommunication companies have allowed access to switchboards, rooms, and equipment. Most notable a few years ago, an ex-AT&T employee who worked out of the San Francisco switching office revealed the truth of a “hidden room” on the sixth floor of the building, a room which was occupied by the United States government, one which required government access to enter, and one filled with routing equipment that fed into the main trunks and switches of public communication lines, directing all traffic to massive main frames within the United States intelligence community for flagging and review. These recent events in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks have created a far more zealous wiretapping campaign both abroad and within the American borders, raising questions as to the legality of such actions and the effectiveness of such intrusions on the fundamental rights to privacy established by the Constitution.

The Patriot Act, FISA Courts, and warrantless wiretappings have been becoming of growing interest and concern to civil liberty groups, Congress, and citizens living within the United States. The actions of the intelligence, surveillance, and policing forces of our government have often been found to infringe on the fundamental rights granted us as American citizens by the Constitution. In internal audits and investigations commissioned by Congress, an Inspector General found that in over 60% of the time a telecommunication wiretap was carried through, no filing had been recorded or permission granted by the FISA court, the channel required by the Patriot Act and various other federal laws to be granted a wiretapping warrant. Telecommunication companies have (be it out of fear, governmental support/funding, or something else) complied for the most part with these federal wiretapping requests. AT&T Wireline department was found to have gone as far to have a secret surveillance room on a floor in their San Francisco switching office that routed all communication traffic through government equipment for post, analysis, storage, recording, and wiretapping. As a result, the government was blatantly recording and having access to any communication traffic they wished, rather than going after, through legal means, one person or phone line of interest or that was under investigation. This clear disregard and apparent illegality is alarming, and raises grave concerns over the operations of this government. Why hasn’t there been more oversight into this facet of government operations. What needs to be done more to protect the freedom of speech and right to privacy? And furthermore, what needs to be done to restore law and order to governmental operations and require legal means of obtaining warrants for wiretappings?

Secondary research material has revealed so far some very interesting points regarding this matter. Some advocates argue that these actions are essential in the ever-present fight on terrorism. Others in disagreement with the practices of the government and telecommunication companies argue that much like the red scare created widespread panic and fear of communistic influence, the war on terror is creating a far too overzealous campaign within the Bush administration and intelligence community of the United States. It took a former AT&T employee of the San Francisco switching office to reveal the installation and operation of this “secret room” that required government granted security authorization to enter (and know of its existence). As a result of this eye opening, news groups have been reporting ever since of the illegal activity as perceived by society of the government. Groups like the ACLU have repeatedly and are continually trying to squash these warrant-less wiretaps and restore civil liberties to Americans.

It is necessary to understand the complexities of the Patriot Act and its provisions, for most in Congress weren’t even aware of such at the time of its passing. My intention is not to present yet another upset American’s viewpoint regarding the matter. My hope is to uncover the way the government is truly operating, the steps they are taking as compared to the steps they should be taking pursuant to the Patriot Act, the Constitution, and numerous other state and federal laws and regulations. Further research into these procedures and processes is required to attain a real understanding of where things are going wrong, which will hopefully lead to subsequent resolutions to these matters. I hope to engage the history of wiretappings, their inherent necessity in crime fighting, with the proper procedures provided by the laws, and argue for and against certain law that may be, to put it plainly, simply far too overzealous in its true intentions. Former U.S. Senator turned Law and Order District Attorney of New York, Fred Dalton Thompson was given a campaign slogan of “Law and Order.” That is what I intend to engage, a balance between law and order, a balance that has clearly yet to be obtained. Combining actual law with internal audits and Congressional reports will be important in gauging how effective these new anti-terror fighting laws have been, and to what extent they have been followed. Societal response is also very important in issues involving telecommunications and wiretappings. Blogs, news articles and investigative reports will serve to integrate this element into my research. If society weren’t at all concerned with this issue, there would be no news or eyebrows raised at the actions of the government and telecommunication companies. There clearly is a sense of concern publicly and within Congress itself, perhaps realizing their mistake post-Patriot Act.

[image via Review Journal and PureGarlic]

Bare with me as this is a long one. Take it in pieces, take it in strides. What it tells you is of a government program, unethical in nature, that is for the most part, not even followed. The issues at hand are not primarily regarding the FISA courts nor the warrants that they issue for wiretaps. The issue today revolves around one thing – Carnivores.

A system implemented by the FBI, Carnivore is designed to -

monitor email and electronic communications. It used a customizable packet sniffer that can monitor all of the target user’s Internet traffic.

The problem is that these Windows-based workstations are installed at ISP’s and large businesses across the nation. They perform one task, albeit a large one. These systems route a copy of all traffic flowing through them to what has arguably become the world’s largest database, somewhere within the confines of a government, for tagging, analysis, and review. The government no longer has a problem of getting the electronic information from the Internet – it has the problem of trying to find specific information from within the vast array that is our personal communication.

These systems have become of increasing importance in the Bush-era Patriot Act realm as well as in conducting warrantless wiretappings. [see NYTimes article] But as one Los Angeles Times article points out,

As more Americans are watched, fewer cases are made. The trend concerns civil liberties groups as well as some lawmakers and legal experts.

And with full compliance between the government and many of the nation’s ISP’s and telecommunication providers, the issue is becoming of increasing importance. The government, who, just for kicks, controls many of the licenses and spectrums that telecoms use to operate their networks, carries with itself leverage to obtain cooperation with the major telecommunication companies.

Fast forwarding from this article to today, Congress has passed legislation offering retroactive immunity to those telecommunication companies that provided “assistance” to the federal government in these wiretapping programs. It is clear that this topic is far from over. [see also San Francisco Chronicle article]

Anyway, as I digress, below is a research project I completed last year for school. The above is a continuation of my research post-completion. Read it. Enjoy. Divulge and reflect. Or whatever… (and for the lazy in you, I am going to post my prospectus of the assignment next – quick one page summation of the project that grasps the general concepts of the ideas and revelations expressed below)

——————————

A Sleuth of Secrecy

In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the Untied States that took the lives of thousands, an initiative that became known as the Patriot Act saw its creation. Spearheaded by President George W. Bush’s administration, the Patriot Act enabled government agencies and agents much looser means of obtaining information and carrying out missions. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, or FISC, (a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] which dates back to 1978), clad with concrete walls and windowless rooms deep within restricted Justice Department buildings, became the outlet for obtaining such warrants. Agencies received approval for warrants and wiretaps, among other things, under the federally sealed authority of these courts; the channel which received renewed authority in 2001 by the highly controversial Patriot Act. [NSA image via MWCNews]

However, as the Patriot Act was set to expire, and members of the United States government sought its re-enactment, an internal investigation was held to gauge the Patriot Act’s effectiveness and legality. Led by Inspector General Fine, government agencies such as the FBI were found to be ignoring the channels provisioned by the Patriot Act in seeking “legal” warrants. Often serving the telecommunication companies with demands for wiretaps sans warrants, civil liberties were put in question and the legality of the governments and the telecommunications actions were beginning to be questioned. These actions raise several important questions. Do the NSA and various other intelligence communities/agencies have explicit rights to simply go into a switching office and re-route all traffic to government recording equipment, essentially recording any traffic it wishes, then passing that traffic on to the other end of the communication circuit? Where do the big name telecommunication companies stand with regard to these issues? Do they have the ability to, as communication companies, decline a FISA court decision mandating government access to this communication traffic? In efforts to protect the telecoms and preserve a future of relations, the President has begun an initiative that would grant legal immunity to these corporations. What is the status of the President’s actions to grand this legal immunity? What sorts of immunity will this create, and how will it impact America and its citizens? The various actions of both the United States Government and the major telecommunication companies have raised numerous ethical, constitutional, and legal questions. In engaging the history of wiretappings, their inherent necessity in crime fighting, with the proper procedures provided by the laws and Constitution of this country, there is an inability to fight for the actions and laws briefly outlined, both of which are the foundation for what has become a far too overzealous anti-terrorism fighting campaign.

The Patriot Act, FISA Courts, and warrantless wiretappings have been becoming of growing interest and concern to civil liberty groups, Congress, and citizens living within the United States. The actions of the intelligence, surveillance, and policing forces of our government have often been found to infringe on the fundamental rights granted us as American citizens by the Constitution. It took Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, to reveal the secret installations the government was installing and using in eavesdropping across American telecommunication networks, including voice and Internet installations. [pictured at right is the controlled access door to the secret routing room, via Wired] According to Klein’s affidavit in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit filed shortly thereafter, AT&T provided the National Security Agency with “full access to its customers’ phone calls, and shunted its customers’ Internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center.” (Singel n.p.) In doing such, AT&T is alleged to have violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and Internet communications without warrants.

As a result, the government was blatantly recording and having access to any communication traffic they wished, rather than going after, through legal means, one person or phone line of interest or some entity that was under investigation. This clear disregard and apparent illegality is alarming, and raises grave concerns over the operations of this government. Why hasn’t there been more oversight into this facet of government operations. What needs to be done more to protect the freedom of speech and right to privacy? It is not that there are no satisfactory means of obtaining legal warrants, but rather that the intelligence agencies find the warrants inhibitive; ironic as warrants are just that, they offer a check and balance in the search process so as to protect the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Various legal issues arise from this AT&T secret room, one which Klein soon found to not be unique in its existence, as several similar installations existed across numerous other major metropolitan cities’ switching offices throughout the nation. But does the NSA have explicit rights to go in and re-route all traffic to these government eavesdropping equipment? The Bush administration seems to think so, maintaining that “the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather ‘foreign intelligence’ integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF),” a document that interestingly enough, lacks any mention of surveillance. (Figliola 1-17 and U.S. DOJ 1-42) Senators Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter, both conservative Republicans, find the Bush administration’s use of the AUMF for justification to be ludicrous.

Scholars similarly tend to disagree, rejecting the Bush administration’s position, unanimously concluding the illegalities of the warrantless wiretapping program. Philip B. Heymann, a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration and current professor of law at Harvard University argues against claims by President Bush and former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are “often too cumbersome to obtain.” (Eggen n.p.) Heymann argues, “The only reason to do what they’ve been doing is because they wanted a lower standard than ‘probable cause.’” The probable cause clause references a requirement in the FISA warrant application process. Yet, despite various avenues of legal acquisition for these wiretapping warrants, the Bush administration continues along the same path, similarly rejecting a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.

Despite all of the negative press clouding this issue, there are some scholars that raise legitimate arguments for the government’s actions. Nola Breglio, a contributor to The Yale Law Journal argues that the FISA courts sealed warrants create a “conceptual mess.” From a crime-fighting standpoint, Breglio is dead on; obtaining sealed warrants, often for an individual or group that spans multiple jurisdictions and localities, hampers legal procedures. But are these actions even legal? The Patriot Act explicitly grants the authority to issue warrants to the FISC, with probable cause stipulations and safeguards. Breglio’s argument for the continued warrantless wiretappings seems convincing from a crime-fighting stance, but cannot be justified by any legal precedence. Wiretaps must be subjected to the rigorous review process of Department of Justice officials in all FISA applications. (Breglio 26-30)

These warrantless wiretaps have sparked a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program. In internal audits and investigations commissioned by Congress, Inspector General Fine found that in over 60% of the time a telecommunication wiretap was carried through, no filing had been recorded or permission granted by the FISA court, the channel required by the Patriot Act and various other federal laws to be granted a legal wiretap. (Committee on the Judiciary 1-26) Due to a multiplicity of factors, the major telecommunication companies have long had to comply with and provide access to governmental institutions for wiretaps, though they may not be so willing to admit such actions. Company installation and monitoring records that have surfaced through various ACLU and EFF lawsuits reveal that these government-monitoring systems are not something new; in fact, they existed pre-September 11th, 2001. Records show that SBC (which has since merged with AT&T) had government eavesdropping installations installed sometime in early 2000. (Cauley n.p.) These pre-9/11 installations raise questions to the way the intelligence agencies and the United States government have been operating. It seems they may be using the terrorist attacks and war on terror to justify their eavesdropping operations, operations that have long been the norm for conducting wiretappings and gathering information and intelligence domestically. [pictured to the right are Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.)and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) speaking to reporters about the chamber's expansion of the surveillance via Washington Post by AP]

Investigative reporters for Bloomberg News and USA Today also uncovered that the NSA has secretly been collecting the phone call-detail records (or CDR’s) of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. These CDR’s came with a price, a major incentive the NSA offered the telecommunication companies in exchange for the CDR logs, which contain inbound and outbound connection numbers, day and time of call, as well as duration. This program was independently verified through multiple sources (all of whom remained anonymous due to the highly sensitive nature of the information) to have begun seven months before the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. (Harris n.p.)

Chip Pitts, a member of Stanford’s School of Law, has long been in opposition to the illegalities committed by both the government and the telecommunication companies. He argues that “telecommunication companies like AT&T have long and profitably assisted the NSA, and as technology has shifted…[the telecoms] have helped the NSA exploit these [new trends].” (Pitts 1-3) The telecoms are receiving financial, legal, and judicial support from the government in exchange for this transfer of information to NSA mainframes for data mining and analysis, and as such, telecommunication companies have no incentive to protect the information traveling through its trunk lines and fiber optics. This poses quite possibly the largest threat to the preservation of civil liberties, one in which the major telecom corporations of this country may use and abuse for economic gains. With no oversight programs in place, these monitoring installations inherently will be abused. When probed about these allegations, telecommunication companies are unanimous in their responses. AT&T answered saying, “We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law.” Verizon, the number two telecom company in America behind AT&T, gave the following statement: “We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers’ privacy.” And BellSouth responded by saying, “BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.” (Cauley n.p.) What law is it that all three companies are referring to? It is clear that both the Bush administration and the major telecoms are referencing false standards of legal authority that they believe grants them the power to issue warrantless wiretaps.

The truth is, that under Presidential directive, a corporation may issue falsified statements regarding ongoing operations of national security measures, protocols, and issues. Bringing this into perspective, it is estimated that there have been over two trillion call-detail records generated since 2001, the majority of which reside in what has become the largest database ever created, worldwide. (Schmitt n.p.)

In response to the growing spotlight on the telecommunication companies, President Bush has been working on creating an extension to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) earlier this year to offer full judicial immunity to the telecoms in their “assistance in national security matters.” Congressional response to Bush’s proposal to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not issued such approval. The revisal would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies from lawsuits stemming from alleged surveillance activities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in March of 2008 without the immunity provision sought by the Bush administration. James X. Dempsey, Executive Director for Democracy and Technology argues along parallels to the Houses’ bill. Enough damage and misuse already exists within the Patriot Act that granting immunity towards its provisions accomplishes nothing more than creating a larger mess. (Baker and Kavanagh 18-22)

It appears that for the time being, Congressional consensus is not in favor of granting immunity to those parties involved in the Bush administration’s policies and actions. Were retroactive immunity to be established, no party would be held liable for issuing and permitting warrantless wiretaps, and Americans would be living in a country with a clear absence of Amendment I and IV to the United States Constitution. Through political and economic pressure, citizens could revolt against the government and telecoms if immunity were ever granted by ceasing telecom service. Perhaps switching exclusively to VoIP services, which still are susceptible to interception and eavesdropping depending on the Internet service provider’s compliance policies, would threaten the revenue of the major telecoms to a point that would cease their involvement with the Bush administration’s eavesdropping tactics. The looming possibility of an upcoming change of political party in the oval office may offer substantial changes to policy and operations as well. The Bush administration has certainly created a divide within the Republican Party, splitting support not along party lines but within party boundaries as well. Will these eavesdropping and surveillance programs continue post-Bush administration? Presidential Candidate and Senator John McCain just this week issued a statement reserving the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, citing political theory that a president’s wartime powers supersede federal criminal statutes and most importantly, court oversight, an element that President Bush avoided during a five-year end-run around the FISA courts. (Singel, n.p.) This new statement is a stark reversal of his previous criticism of the Bush administration’s program, raising many questions with regards to domestic and foreign monitoring programs post-Bush administration. Change is likely eminent once a new administration enters office; how drastic depends on the President elected. [image via Review Journal]

It is necessary to understand the complexities of the Patriot Act and its provisions, for most in Congress weren’t even aware of such at the time of its passing. My intention was not to present yet another upset American’s viewpoint regarding the matter, but rather to uncover the way the government is truly operating, the steps they are taking as compared to the steps they should be taking pursuant to the Patriot Act, the Constitution, and numerous other state and federal laws and regulations. Further research into these procedures and processes has revealed several missteps and illegal operating procedures.

Despite vast legal precedent established and channels of authorization available to law enforcement officials to seek warrants for wiretappings of American switchboards, it has become clearly evident that this is a problem that has grown rapidly and exponentially. Breaking the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, it has no longer become just a matter of unethical practices. The Bush Administration has elicited the cooperation of the telecom companies in practices that have grown to infringe upon and invade the civil liberties of billions of people, worldwide. The collective actions between the intelligence departments, the United States government, and the telecommunication corporations make for the potential of a problem that evolves from more than just a legal and civil liberties debate. Social ramifications are quickly becoming a facet of the social Web 2.0 sphere that the government, among others, is taking a keen interest in.

Much like the red scare a few decades ago and the subsequent panic and fear of communistic invasion, the war of terror is a result of a far too overzealous campaign within the Bush administration and supported for economic and business reasons by the major telecommunication corporations. There clearly has yet to be a balance of law and order established, a problem that roots to capitalistic corporations and misguided legal precedent by leadership and government agencies.

Much talk has been generated after the results of the 2008 Presidential election as to the fate of the GOP after it suffered a fatal blow. Losing the White House by a wide margin, the Republicans are also in danger of a fillibuster-free Senate as Democrats inch closer to a majority presence.

This election proved many things. This country was tired of the current administration and the past eight years of missteps and wrongdoings. This country, and for that matter, the world, is becoming increasingly interconnected via the world wide web, and the social interaction of the Web 2.0 culture has a huge impact. President-Elect Barack Obama realized this from the beginning, embracing technology as he has done even in his Senate days. The Republican Party on a whole steered shy of utilizing technology though – their largest falter in this election.

And unfortunately for them, the GOP is only now realizing this. A website has sprung up recently calling for change – the same slogan that Barack Obama used to win the White House – a change in their standard operating procedures, and a change in their interactions with others. Rebuild the Party outlines a 10-point action plan to modernize and strengthen the Republican Party from the grassroots up. The site calls for a grassroots first policy, encouraging new candidates, with new strategies, and the embracing of new technologies. A snippet below explains the organizer’s mission statement and touches on what they believe the problems of the party to be.

The time is now to set in motion the changes needed to rebuild our party from the grassroots up, modernize the way we run campaigns, and attract different, energetic, and younger candidates at all levels.

We must be conservative in philosophy — but bold in our approach. We don’t need a slight tweak here or there. We need transformation. We can’t keep fighting a 21st century war with 20th century weapons.

The site calls for the use of the Internet, calling it the party’s number one priority. Organizers have an internal goal of trying to recruit five million new Republican online activists – which will engage grassroots participants and help to create the most creative, engaging, and compelling political messages. The site points out a political ideology that the Obama team has used – the Politics of Us – as his greatest strength. If the GOP can adopt this policy of putting the people first, giving the power to accomplish things to the people, the Republican Party will survive. And that shouldn’t be too hard, given that Obama’s winning strategy is an inherently conservative idea – the people, acting together outside of the government, can accomplish great things. The Yes We Can concept in action.

But who will be the one that can successfully put a face to the party? It is widely thought that Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) has such ambitions, wanting to put her rock star diva together in 2012 to run for office and resurrect a Republican president. But this is also widely thought to be a laughing matter, and a further detriment to the Republican Party. The GOP does not want Palin. So who do they want? Former Massachusetts Governor Mit Romney seems a likely candidate. He brings with him the independent wealth that he used to jump start and finance his Republican nomination bid over a year ago, and the swagger and following of many within the party. But he will have some hurdles to overcome if he were to succeed in 2012 as the Republican front runner. Romney needs a clear message, one that he believes in and not on that is generated to please potential voters.

Whoever the Republicans pick to be their front runner for office in a couple years, they now know that change is needed. The candidate that can successfully merge technology with policy and speech and can invigorate a grassroots system similar to the millions that President-Elect Obama had mobilized during his campaign will emerge with the party nomination.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 reports on the recent Republican Governor’s Association conference in Florida and includes commentary on what Republican Governor’s view as the needs and directions the party must take to succeed in the future.

Photo Credit: No RNC Poster Project, CNN, and Rebuild the Party

Dick Cheney came out this last Saturday to publicly endorse Senator John McCain’s quest to reach the oval office as Commander in Chief of the United States. But is this really what the McCain campaign needed? An endorsement from the man who has sat with George W. Bush for the last eight years, a man who has gone quail hunting and shot his own friend my mistake.

Much like the comedic endorsement from George W. Bush on Saturday Night Live a couple weeks ago (portrayed by Will Ferrell), producers tried to make it clear that a “vote for John McCain is a vote for George W.” Ferrell used the punch-line “When you go to the polls, remember this face, I repeat, remember this face, when you vote for John McCain.”

Editor’s Note: I have posted a video from NBC with the SNL Skit described above. The video is embedded on my other site as they won’t embed properly on WordPress. [Linked]

Going back to the Dick Cheney endorsement, the Obama campaign was quick to utilize this golden opportunity to point out what this endorsement really means. The following is a response by Joe Biden:

If you ever had any doubt that John McCain would continue George Bush’s policies — you can put those to rest. Just today, Vice President Cheney came out and endorsed John McCain. Do we need any more proof? I’m not surprised. Dick Cheney has been wrong on everything else the last eight years. He’s on a roll.

Many are seeing this as the nail in the coffin for John McCain. For a man who has voted 90% of the time with Cheney and Bush, this endorsement reiterates “more of the same” for a country that is clearly tired of the same policies and actions of the Bush administration. Senator Barack Obama responds:

I’d like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn’t come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington’s biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney’s support.

And below, the endorsement video clip. Dick Cheney’s endorsement of John McCain appears to have the same effect as the satiric endorsement of George W. Bush on Saturday Night LIve – turning undecided and even McCain voters towards Barack Obama. You watch, you decide.

Photo Credit: PennLive.com

With only days remaining until American’s go to the polls in what are expected to be record breaking numbers, both candidates are stepping up their game. Barack Obama has certainly used his campaign funds effectively, making his cause known, and his resolutions within reach. Carrying a significant lead into the final week of campaigning, Barack Obama has seen recent success in key battleground states. Colorado and Nevada are now both expected to award their electoral votes to Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. Florida is also leaning Obama. So what has Obama’s opponent been up to?

Senator John McCain has been losing ground and stumbling. The demise of his campaign likely leads back to his selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential pick. But in a rally this morning in the key battleground state of Ohio, McCain faltered. During his speech, McCain relayed to his audience that they were joined by the now infamous Joe the Plumber. And he took a moment to seek Joe out in the crowd – only to find Joe was not in attendance. The McCain aids were unable to get word to McCain in time that Joe would not be attending, and as a result, McCain suffered an embarrassing slip up.

Perhaps McCain’s only “celebrity” act, Joe the Plumber represents an opposition to Barack Obama’s tax policies, and has given media attention to Senator John McCain. And he didn’t even show, what’s that tell you? Embarrassing, especially after all the time McCain has spent building up Joe the Plumber as a symbol of his appeal with middle class voters. You decide, but it seems like McCain’s hopes to be the President of the United States of America will be dashed once again.

With the Presidential race coming to a close and elections nearing, where do major corporations, institutions, and news organizations place their allegiances? The majority, both conservative and liberal, have by in large endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat, but more importantly, a figure of hope, change, and a brighter future. A President for the people, for the country, Obama plans to put “Country First,” a slogan of John McCain, but an actual reality with Obama. The future is becoming clearer, and those in support of McCain are becoming harder and harder to find. His support seems to be flocking away across the nation.

The Anchorage Daily News just came out to endorse Senator Barack Obama, despite their own Governor’s run for Vice President. Their reasoning is simple -

“Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain… Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting [Palin] one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.”

So who is left to support Senator John McCain? Several established and well respected war generals have publicly offered their support for McCain, but the buck stops there. The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune, a news conglomerate that has not backed a liberal or Democrat in over a hundred years, have all backed Senator Obama. General Colin Powell, a well respected Republican icon, could not muster support for his party’s candidate for reasons similar to the Anchorage Daily News. The light is fading for John McCain, and the finish line is near for Barack Obama, a finish line that will only be the beginning of things to come for this nation, for this world, and for the next President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Below is a featured video entry on the social networking website Digg. The top news article at the time of publishing, the video below is a excellent summary of the Obama plan for the next four years, and beyond…

Photo credit: Editors Weblog

Average old Joe. A plumber, a business man, and a recent media phenomenon. Joe Wurzelbacher, better known to the American media as “Joe the Plumber” was, like many Americans, attempting to become politically involved and informed. With an election ballot creeping up on us faster than ever that will determine which direction this country is heading, it is important to stay politically affluent. Attending a site where Barack Obama spoke, “Joe the Plumber” was lucky enough to get some face to face talk time with the Senator, drilling him on questions regarding his plans of action for tax reformation.

The subsequent conversation between the two turned out to carry more weight than just potential tax reformations and restructuring. For several minutes, Senator Obama eloquently and professionally countered Wurzelbacher’s concerns. A businessman who is looking ahead and is seeing his company grow, Joe was concerned that under Obama’s new tax plan, which offers tax relief to workers and their families making under a quarter of a million dollars (thats $250,000) annually, and raises taxes for businesses making more than that amount annually by a few percentage points (from 36% to 39%), he would be taxed more, and wanted the Senators opinion on the matter.

Without hesitation, Obama thanked Wurzelbacher for his concern, but reiterated the larger idea. In a struggling economy, the work force consists in large part of middle class citizens, working nine to five jobs, retail, etc. Under current tax regulations, it is these citizens that are taxed more, these businesses that are taxed higher. Large corporations who have been fortunate enough to see success have seen drastic tax cuts under the conservative Bush administration. But, as Obama explained, 95% of small businesses are categorized under this $250,000 annual cap. And it’s these businesses being hurt the most in a troubling economy. So why not offer up tax cuts to these businesses, which in turn will pump more money into those in need. This 95% will be better off financially because of it, as will our economy, when the money enters into play again.

So, who is this average Joe, and why has he generated such publicity? The American media flocked to his story and bloggers and reporters alike checked him out. Concerned about his plumbing business, Joe is not even a licensed plumber in the state of Ohio where he works and resides. Furthermore, he actually owes back taxes. All of this is besides the fact, however. The real issue resides not with one unlicensed plumber who now has reporters outside his home at all hours, day and night, but with people like him. The average Joe, the average middle class American citizen and small business stand to gain the most from Senator Obama and lose the most from Senator McCain.

Senator Obama’s response to Wurzelbacher’s concerns below:

Photo credit: Boston.com

Top news article of the day, perhaps of the weekend, is the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by General Colin Powell.

More to follow when I wake up in the morning, for now, the video feed from MSNBC:

Continued…

General Colin Powell’s (retired) endorsement of Barack Obama came just as expected over the weekend, a detrimental setback to the McCain campaign. In the seven minute long interview with NBC’s Tom Brokaw, Powell dissects the reasoning that went into his decision, a clearly thought out and well analyzed decision.

Citing Governor Palin’s lack of experience and apparent inability to perform the duties of the Presidency, if called upon, “which is the job of the Vice President” Powell states, and a clear confusion with regards how to handle the current economic situation our country faces, Powell found himself troubled with the task of voting for his party’s elected candidate.

Powell points out that Obama has displayed “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this, picking a Vice President that is ready to be President on day one.” Obama has shown intellectual vigor throughout his campaign, and is displaying a professionalism worthy of the Presidency. His campaign has grown and his future cabinet promises to be one that offers hope, change, and a brighter future.

Powell’s endorsement marks a huge accomplishment for Barack Obama, something he has clearly earned through his campaigning and display of qualification. Surely this is not sitting well with the McCain camp.

Way to go John, you managed to avoid finishing last in your class in the Academy. 894th out of 899, congratulations. Your goofball, hellish attitude and fiery temperament towards your superiors should have left you with more insubordination demerits than acceptable to graduate, but you had your daddy and grandaddy there to bail you out, financially and politically. Let’s face it, you are no more competent than the W in office right now, and that is not saying anything to begin with. Do us all a favor and put the country first again. Use your seat as a Senator of Arizona to do some good for this country, help to solve the economic crisis, fix our foreign policy, and bring back the image of America as a good place, a prosperous, hard working country to the rest of the world. Rid us of the douche-bag image that the world sees America as. And for the good of the country, do it by putting party lines aside. Put the country first and stop these flip flopping shenanigans. Learn to write an email, and use that new knowledge to email all of your supporters, urging them to come together to help fight the many problems we face as a country today, together with the rest of the citizens and politicians in America, putting party association aside. We are not looking for the guy that graduated first in his class, nor are we necessarily looking for the guy that graduated second in his class. All we as American’s want is a man, or a woman, willing to put country first. Someone that has a realistic idea of how to fix our country and restore pride and dignity to our economic and political systems. If the 894th guy in his class could do that, he would be elected through the trust of American citizens.

The problem is, you’re not that guy…

Photo credit: Killer Buffalo – The Independent’s Voice