Why did the Democrats just vote to help legalize President Bush's lawbreaking, and also to further strip away the rights and liberties of Americans? A website called maplight.org may be shedding some light on the question.
Telecom donations tied to FISA vote
" Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more than double the amount of money as those who voted against it."
And, when I went to excellent website that Maplight.org has started, I dug a bit and created the table illustrated above. Now, one striking thing is the dates of the data in the table. They go back to 2001. But, when you look at the top three on the list, while Sen. McCain and Clinton had been in the US Senate that whole time, Sen. Obama has only been on the national stage for about half of that period. Yet, there he is very high up the list.
This vote was highly damaging in several ways. For one, it was the last step in essentially legalizing President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Remember, President Bush initially stood up before the nation and announced both that he had already been breaking the law on a regular basis, but that he would continue to do so. In a nation of laws, that should have sparked immediate impeachment hearings. Instead, the Congress with full 'bipartisan' support has passed laws legalizing the unconstitutional spying on Americans. And now this bill goes further and gives immunity to the companies that knowingly collaborated in these illegal acts.
Furthermore, it blocks any attempt to find out the scope of the program or other information. The lawsuits that were progressing on this issue were the only real avenue of getting to that information given the inaction of the Democratic led Congress. This bill shuts those down.
Further, it establishes a very dangerous precedent in that the President can bypass everything you thought you knew about how a law was made in this country and just make up his own laws at any time. You know at some point in the future that advisors to a President are going to be discussing some future illegal act by a President and that this issue will come up in the discussion as an argument for the President to act illegally.
And, while the public debate has been over telecom immunity, this bill also contains a very dangerous expansion of the government's ability to spy on Americans.
Sen. Feingold will attempt to filibuster FISA bill
Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it's an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who's in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.
And gee, there's Sen. Obama with $200,000 plus in his campaign accounts from the industry he just said he supports giving immunity. Of course, like any politician he'll say that's not why he voted.
But, try going to visit Sen. Obama's office to discuss this issue with him? Give it a try. See how far you get. If you are really lucky and persistent, you might get a brief interview with staff who will listen to your pitch and then cite back the party line on why Sen. Obama just gave away the rights your forefathers died to obtain for you.
Wanna bet the executives of those telecom companies that have funneled so much money into Sen. Obama's coffers wouldn't have any trouble at all speaking to the Senator about this issue? Wanna bet their phone calls got returned by the Senator? Even if it is not as nefarious as buying votes, it is certainly buying access. Access that you as a citizen who is concerned about a government that is taking away your rights would never had is certainly granted to the big companies that funnel money to these politicians.
And, with Sen. Obama now foregoing public financing, what do you think the odds were that he was going to turn and bite the hand of an industry that's funded him so well and that he is surely counting on for more donations into the fall campaign?
No comments:
Post a Comment