at least on some things he promised to change.  Has it been all hope no change after all?

Faced with impending defeat in a U.S. District Court habeas corpus case, the Obama administration devised a new strategy for continuing the detention of Mohammed Jawad, an Afghani who may have been as young as 12 in 2002 when he allegedly wounded two U.S. soldiers with a grenade.

Justice Department lawyers announced Friday that they would transform Jawad's indefinite detention as an enemy combatant at Guantánamo Bay into a criminal case, thus negating the habeas corpus hearing in Washington, D.C., where Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had accused the government of "dragging [the case] out for no good reason."

Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project and one of Jawad's lawyers, blasted the Obama administration for its "pathetic attempt to prolong an outrageous case and to manipulate the court system."

"The government's case failed in the Guantánamo military commission hearings and failed in the habeas corpus proceedings before a federal court, and now - knowing that its case would most likely be dismissed - the government is trying to take a third bite at a rotten apple," Hafetz said. "This travesty of justice has gone on long enough, and Jawad should be sent home."

I am writing this diary, mostly quoting another sorce because of the mind numbingly cluelessness of a few bloggers who still insist Palin bashing is a worthy use of the internets.

I agree with Palin on not much, however the way she was treated and spoken about during the election, by democrats and the media (democrats) was an embarrassment and doubly so when it was women doing the bashing.

And because one woman here said the other day that Palin would bring about "a handmaids tale" in real life, I figure I would post this and hope people will buy a clue.  Not that I expect anyone to vote for her.  
The results I hope for would be that the clueless arrogant left wouldn't continue to be as bad as the clueless arrogant right.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009 /04/should-obama-control-internet

Sorry, I hated the idea of faith based initiatives when Bush was president and now Obama is taking them even farther.

Guess what, the fact that he says he is going to protect the separation of church and state is meaningful only to those with a full glass of kool-aid handy.