The most important question I'll NEVER get to ask.

[EnviroBat]

In a few short hours, Hillary Clinton is going to be down the street from me, about 1/4 mi from here. I was thinking about going to the rally, but the point is I want to ask her 1 question. I would like to ask the same of Obama as well, but I'll never get a chance to ask either one of them. I haven't been "pre-screened", or given some canned question. My name is not on a list, nothing. What I want to ask her is this; "Senator Clinton, for the past 7 1/2 years the Bush administration has been promoting an agenda designed to systematically strip us of our Constitutional rights. The latest being the FISA bill fiasco currently being played out in congress. A bill designed to enable the government to use private corporations to spy on U.S. citizens. My question is what will you do to restore our Constitutional rights, and undue the blatant damage inflicted on us through the PNAC agenda of the past 7 1/2 years"?

I'll never get to ask that question. My voice will never be heard. Instead, more of the same "Health care health care--- Blah blah Save the children...!" No one asks the real questions, the questions about our future as a democracy.

I wont waste my time...

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I want answers to that question, too.

To me it's more important than any of the other issues, but nobody seems to talk about it much.

[mac2]

4. I do

People on this web site say....well we have to forget that and vote for the "best choice". Bull crap is my answer. The Constitution is our founding document and law. We've had too many politicans who speak what we want to hear but don't follow up. Time to tow the line now that our freedoms are almost gone.

Hillary and Obama are both globalists which mean they don't give a bit about our democracy.

[EnviroBat]

9. Yeah, I come here and witeness the constant bickering

and infighting. "My candidate is better that yours"! "You candidate is afraid to debate my candidate!" Blah blah blah blah... I want to frikkin KNOW what either of these two people, (I don't care which one), are planning to do to undue the erosion of our basic Constitutional rights. Haven't heard a single peep. If this is not the single most important issue followed by the Iraq debacle, than we as a nation, are truly lost. I want to hear just one person ask my question, be it at a rally, debate, where ever. I WANT AN ANSWER!

[mac2]

11. The first thing Pelosi and Reid should have done but

didn't. They should have moved toward impeached for Bush\Cheney\
Rice\Rumsfled, etc. (for lies about Iraq, etc.) and demanded the attacks on the Constitution be negated. The Patriot Acts and spying are unconstitutional.

We demanded it in the 2006 election. They promised change and accountability which never came. Now they do it again.

At least President Jefferson had the guts to do it when President Adams negated the Constitution and our rights. They'd turn over in their graves at the cowards in charge today. The Continental Army, etc. walked in the snow in bare feet for freedom from the British Empire. George Washington fought most of his life when he was by his own right a rich man. Not for 200 years have we seen such treason against America.

[mac2]

22. Breaking news the Democratic leaders actually mentioned

the Constitution when discussing FISA and the Protection Act on CSPAN today. Ya. They were from the Judicial Committee. Hoyer, Conyers,etc.

What made me uncomfortable was they said, they had to meet in conference with the President and Republicans about it. That won't happen Dems unless you do it "their way or the highway".

Maybe because it is an election year? I won't hold my breath.

[calimary]

15. So do I.

WHERE do you stand on holding this past regime accountable for MASSIVE crimes and violations of the Constitution? Where do you stand on leaving all of that intact, in the history books, for future bush-wannabes to use as an excuse for wanton and capricious lawbreaking - having had NO accountability, NO challenges, NO checks on such a flagrant power grab? Are you REALLY okay with that?

[mac2]

2. IF they can't represent us and our Constitution what are they

there for? Certainly not as our democratic representatives. They took an oath of office to do so. It was a CONTRACT and as a lawyer she knows that. If they represent only the rich and corporations let them pay their salaries, benefits, and pensions. Crap!!!

Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat.

[BonnieJW]

3. Why not go to her campaign web site

and email the question? If you don't get an answer, call one of the offices and ask.

[EnviroBat]

5. Did that, never heard a thing back.

In fact, it was almost this feeling of being dismissed. Maybe the question is too "fanatical" for them to answer...

[rsdsharp]

6. That is exactly the right question

Power, once obtained, whether personally or for an office, is rarely given back willingly. That's why Washington stepping down after two terms stunned the world. Although i like both Clinton and Obama, I don't think either of them are on a par with Washington, especially since they would just be coming into the office he held for eight years.

I do think, however, that if a Democrat wins the presidency, the conservative members of the Supreme Court and Congress are going to much less interested in promoting the concept of the "unitary executive."

[mac2]

13. The Supreme Court is powerless

World Government elite decide who wins and what the legal policy for our country will be. President Bush made a speech about it regarding his trade legislation (CAFTA removes our laws).

Too many Democrats are actually Republicans. We've been betrayed and must start a Progressive movement from the bottom up. Progressive groups give money to candidates who then turn around and ignore our agenda once they hit DC. This has to stop.

The "Robber Barons" now don't just run America like at the turn of the last century but the world (or most of it given up to them for wealth and power by unelected corporate and banking CEOs).

We must ask those questions about corporate influence and groups. Demand they follow their oath of office to protect us from them.

Today, the House Democrats were on CSPAN talking about separation of powers regarding the refusal of Bush administration heads over the Judicial hearings on the Attorney General scandals. Yes..they are arrogant. Why not arrest them for not showing up? Congress has the power to demand they show up and testify since they are paid by the tax payers (or were at the time).

No "change of face law" should be allowed. Some serious things happened regarding those officials...even murder. Gonzales should be held accountable for his perjury too (not just the attorney generals but the war).

[ProgressIn2008]

7. Agreed -- if anyone mentioned PNAC they'd be "unelectable" in 2.8 second

Heck, I remember my jaw dropping when Edwards actually used the word "neocon."

How do we fight an agenda that can't even be named?

[mac2]

10. One Afro-American liberal Congresswoman (TX) mentioned

the African Union on CSPAN. She asked for their help in keeping the peace. It's like Africa is now a Union without anyone's permission. It is a done deal. The Congress seems to think we already have World Government with six or seven unions. What chance do we have to remain a democracy (our previous laws) unless we scream...traitor. Get rid of the CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, G8, etc. They are all there to silence our voices.

Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators in history would be proud of the Bush World Government. It is world Fascism without our permission by the few elite.

What world are they in DC living in? It certainly seems like they want to rule the world without anyones permission. Their abuse of power is outrageous.

[billyoc]

8. Repeat after me:

"Don't tase me, bro!" :rofl:

[sandnsea]

12. Obama opposed Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz

"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Since he has said he seeks to change the mindset that got us into Iraq, and he has previously stated who was behind the ideological mindset, it sounds to me like this is exactly what he intends to change. He has also clearly spoken out on Guantanamo, habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, and upholding the Constitution.

I think people have really got to take an hour and at least skim through 4-5 speeches to know what the candidates are saying. If all you're hearing is health care, then you're only watching Hillary ads or the cable news.

[mac2]

14. It's a little puzzling that Obama supports the Constitution

and CAFTA...trade agreements. They negate our laws and freedoms. They are unconstitutional. If he doesn't know that, he should read them.

[sandnsea]

16. Obama opposed CAFTA

Still, trade agreements are not unconstitutional.

[mac2]

17. He supports "free trade agreements" and hasn't asked

they be negated. Maybe CAFTA because he know we do and he wanted to run for President. He supports the other trade agreements. I know, I called his office to vote against them. He agrees with "globalism".

Yes...so does Hillary.

As soon as this election is over CAFTA and the Americas Union (with open borders) will proceed.

[sandnsea]

18. The agreements aren't right

and he knows it and has vowed to fix it. He agrees with trade agreements that have proper labor and environmental protections, like the Peru agreement. What would be the point of agreeing with that one and disagreeing with CAFTA if it was just a ruse, why not just say you're against all of them?

There is a difference between globalism that benefits the corporations and trade that build local economies from the bottom up. We aren't going to stop trade. We need to make the countries we trade with respect the same kinds of environmental, labor and human rights we do so we're all closer to the same playing field.

And I wish they would open the borders. I'd like to benefit from cheap medicine from Mexico, etc.

[mac2]

19. As Kucinich says...we can trade without those "free trade

agreements" which benefit them and not us. They are one sided...we lose every time. We traded the world prior to them and can again. We are a huge market and should have some power.

Why hasn't he tried to "fix them" while he was in the Senate? We wanted that when we elected him. Na Da so far.

Cheap good medicine from Mexico? You kidding?

[sandnsea]

20. That's why he's running for President

can't do much as a fresman senator.

And absolutely cheap meds from Mexico. My parents used to go down once a year. They've both passed now. They're about 1/4 what we pay, sometimes less.

[mac2]

21. How do you know you are getting the right drug?

It could be compressed powder, etc. I'd go to Canada for drugs not a third world country full of crime and no regulation (like we are becoming).

I'll have to admit that sometimes being off those drugs is better because many of them cause other problems and side effects. My Diabetic father-in-law had kidney problems from his pills. He was already on Insulin. Recentlty women stopped taking hormones so the incidence of Breast and Cervical Cancer went down drastrically. Need I say more about our broken health system?

Senator Obama has been placed high up on the ladder since he first came to Congress. He was given a position on the Intelligence Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, etc. He helped Bush appointments because I called him not to support their appointment. He knows what is going on behind the false flag Iraq war and Bush.

People in IL were amazed at his sudden "powers". He's no freshman in Congress with no power. He's been pushed as a "savior" since he first ran for Congress by the media and party. His face is everywhere...books, Time magazine, etc.

I noticed he's not on those "important" committees now that he is running for President. He's now on the Homeland Security Committee with Lieberman. Imagine that. http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490

The Chicago Tribune newspaper (Conservative and Bob Novak author) supported Obama for Senator and now President. Rep. Emanuel (DLC leader) has supported him but won't anti-war candidates here in IL. If he were such a "Progressive Democrat" that would not be true. He'd be like Kucinich and Edwards...no support and even made fun of.

http://www.house.gov/emanuel/aboutrahm.shtml Democratic party leader...Emanuel (D-IL). Emanual a director of a leading global bank. He worked for Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Barach Obama are a win win for him. Read about the Bilderberg Group and the elite few.

[Adelante]

25. Do you live in Mexico?

I do. I dropped my American health insurance because less than one month's premium equalled a year's coverage here. Americans come here in droves for medical and dental treatment. Even with air fare and hotel and restaurants it still costs less than having treatment done in the US. And frequently doctors and dentists are US-trained anyway. Most of the drugs manufactured here are by American companies located here and sold at a fraction of the price. Don't be a chump, come to Mexico for your health care until the US finally figures it out.

[mac2]

26. No thank you.

[mac2]

24. Trade agreements are unconstitutional

since the people do not get to determine their own goals and agreement via their representatives in their district. It is done in secret behind closed doors by unknown trade representatives or the President. Media is not allowed in.

The Constitution gives Congress power over trade not the President and his appointed trade representatives. Both Congress and the President are abusing their duties regarding trade. To change that duty in the Constitution ratification would be called for. That has not been done. So it is illegal.

If the people of the home district don't like Australia exporting milk to our market they can demand a change from their person in Congress. If it is not stopped they can remove him. The present system of trade agreements don't allow for that voice. We are powerless. We don't even trade on an equal footing. It is one sided in.

Our founding fathers thought long and hard about duties for the various branches of government. Giving the President power of trade is too much power. He can bribe behind closed doors without our knowledge. Like now. It is another impeachable act.

[ooga booga]

23. oooooo....I love that question!

It's just the kind of question that needs to keep popping up over and over again. That's how we'll finally course correct back to our core principles. Let 'em know that we expect answers to very good questions like this one.