US House of Reps calls President's bluff!

Who knew?

After posting my blog yesterday, hoping the US House of Representatives would stand up to President Bush's vociferous threats that our national security would be endangered (not true) if they did not renew his, some would say anti-constitutional surveillance legislation, Protect America Act - they did! They stood up! They not only stood up but they adjourned for a week!

Who knew?

President Bush threatened that he would cancel his trip to Africa to make sure the law was pushed through the House. Psych! He's already on his way to the dark continent and the Act has not been renewed.

*Someone* in the House must have had a spine transplant, checked the polygraph or actually did some research proving the president was lying before giving him another rubber stamp.

Here's the deal: part of that legislation would provide retroactive immunity to phone companies and others who may have broken the law while spying on American citizens. President Bush wants to rush the renewal through to protect corporations following what they thought the government ordered them to do - illegally.

Part of the courage to stand up to the president came in reaction to, once again, the US Attorney General saying he would not honor House contempt of Congress subpoenas for former Bush adminstration members Harriett Mier, White House counsel and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, for refusing to testify about the firing of U.S. Attorneys.

Many of those US Attorneys fired by the Bush administration say they were released because they were not biased enough in favor of the Republican party and the Bush administration's political agenda. US Attoreys are supposed to be unbiased in their job.

Now, what "horror" would befall us if Bush's "Protect America Act" lapses?

Nothing that would endanger our security.

The Justice Department itself reports that our government would retain all the powers it had before August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law of the land that remains current. It requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance done on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets.

Classified orders allowing the monitoring of international telephone calls, e-mail traffic and other communications under the Protect America Act are normally valid for a year; they wouldn't expire before August, 2008.

Those orders cover terrorist groups or telecommunication providers in their entirety. More, Democrats insist new groups, phone numbers and other information can be added to existing orders.

However, individuals and businesses who broke the law spying on American citizens would not be immune from legal action retroactively, from the beginning of the original Protect America Act.

Speaking of retroactively - the previous FISA allows law enforcement to have judicial surveillance permission granted retroactively. That is, if I'm law enforcement and believe that there is an imminent threat, I can go ahead and wiretap or whatever is necessary while the judicial process (a judge approves the surveillance) is taking place. When permission finally comes through, it protects the law enforcement officer(s) from the moment I instigated the surveillance.

Likewise, if law enforcement is too busy responding to the threat to submit the papers, they can submit the request after their work with the threat is completed.

The reason this is so important?

When the judges know what is going on and why, it is to make sure that there are no abuses of surveillance by law enforcement. It's in line with the constitutional idea of checks and balances.

The Bush Act provides for "warrantless" surveillance so judges do not have to be notified.

We have plenty of laws already on the books to provide for protecting us against any threat - and it is a conservative argument that begs for fewer laws, not more. But it is believed that Bush wants to have enough legislation that gives him complete authority to do anything he wishes, which is why he is accused of establishing an "imperial presidency" with Dick Cheney.

No checks or balances. Former White House counsel John Dean contends in his book, Broken Government, that the Bush administration has destroyed all three branches of government - legislative, judicial and executive - through fomenting fear and insisting on such legislation as unnecessary as Bush's Protect America Act.

FDR said it all: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Don't fall for fear mongering. A real leader doesn't instill fear; he or she empowers you to deal appropriately and confidently in your best interest with whatever may be a threat to your welfare, health or survival.

Check out the facts of anything someone says who is trying to manipulate you and mess with your mind by trying to scare you into doing what they he or she wants you to do.

So much to say, so little time...

Bloody hell.

When I have so much to say, my time is too limited to share all the thoughts, on-goings and good news going on here.

One thing I will say about understanding the state of a US in disarray: watch Lou Dobbs on CNN, and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

I knew Lou way back when. He worked at a Seattle TV station (I worked on the radio side) and he was regarded by my little circle as a pompous, knee-jerk conservative, sexist guy. If you asked me, "Does he think for himself?" My impression was no.

We knew of his great ambitions but were frankly surprised when he got his CNN gig. He came with his talking points, however, and stuck with them.

So, what happened that I recommend him now?

One thing that becomes clear to me: he became a man who chooses to think for himself. He is apparently a man who wants to learn, to dig, to know the truth even if it flies in the face of what he's said before, enough to grow as a person and as a media representative for all viewers, not the few who hold the purse strings of the lobbyists, political parties, corporate powers that be or advertisers.

Mind you, I don't agree with everything Lou says or does any more than I agree with everything Keith says or does.

But I do think he would be willing to learn if he finds he's on the wrong track. He's done it before. Likewise, Keith strikes me as someone who's more interested in the truth than in being "right." Or left.

Keep giving 'em hell, Lou, and looking out for all American citizens who feel so helpless and far away from any sense of power - especially since even the integrity of the vote is questioned since voting systems cannot be verified without an all-important but missing paper trail.

Keith Olbermann, has a terrific sports background, so I believe he sees politics more the way you and I do because he didn't get broken in to the national journalistic community through the typical channels: start small, know and socialize with the politicians about whom you report as you climb up the food chain, cut a few quid pro quo deals to get a scoop, and the list goes on.

The system has developed into one in which if you want to report on someone significant, if you want access to him or her, you have to toe the line or else they'll slam the door. The key is not to take no for an answer and not to get enmeshed with anyone to the point they owe you anything or you owe them anything.

The truth is the truth. An opinion is an opinion. I'm not threatened by either, but a whole lot of people are, and for a journalist to be threatened by either is dangerous.

Recently, a GQ Magazine article on Hillary Clinton was killed - apparently it had some pretty critical points to make about her as well as laudatory comments (the reporter said it was very balanced) - in order to secure a media seat on a plane traveling with former President Bill Clinton to Africa to show all the work being done there by him to help not only that nation, but others.

Part of the problem is that too many people are addled by a barrage of propaganda and spun data that the truth is very difficult to find, report or discern.

The biggest telltale sign of a poor, misleading report is one that simply quotes someone as fact, then quote someone else who disagrees with what was said. Neither is a fact, and in fact when especially someone from the Bush administration says something there is at least a 50-50 chance what they are saying is an outright lie.

For whatever reason, the President, thinking himself a king, not in an elected position; the Vice-President and other high level administrative appointees have no qualms about lying to make you do what they want you to do, believe what they want you to believe.

An unquestioning, unchallenging media provided the gateway to their hubris. To the point they actually convinced themselves they would never be caught in their lies; from there, they honestly think that no one would believe they would tell a lie.

They're wrong.

Some media have managed to get a spinal transplant. But too few to stop the partisan squabbling that may ultimately be the undoing of a genuinely great nation.