FISA and Obama

Leftists tend to froth at the mouth--for no apparent reason, boyond irrationality, asAmericans face more real invasion of privacy at airposts) when FISA is brought up.

FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow WIREPTAPPING (and other sourveillance) of FOREIGN comunications without a warrnat, even though SOME of such communications may involve people in America, or Americans.  You boviously do not KNOW whether a foreigner may be contacting an American, or calling the U.S., until AFTER you have started the surveillance.  It really is hard to see what is whrong with this kind of surveillance to trly to get intelligence on FOREIGN terrorists. Now it is always possible for ABUSE to occur, but you can deal with any abuse when it happens.

However, irrational as it is, Democrats--including, especially, Barack Obma--have been throwing roadblocks in the path of a renewal of the FISA authority.  They have been really adamant about a retroactive immunity for commuincation company ro cooperating witht he Federal Government RIGHT AFTER 9/11, and in that famous NSA surveillance program.  While Democrats may not like capitalism, and corporations, thhere are two main reasons for this:  !.  (and most important)  Democrats want to USE the courts to try to continue to harass the Bush Administration over alleged violations of the law, including trying to get information in civil lawsuits;  2.  Demotrats are beholden to the trial lawyers' lobby (yes, I WAS a trial lawyer).

Now Democrats in Congress have caved.  They have essentially made a deal to let  President Bush's version of FISAA, with some face saving changes, to pass.  This includes IMMUNITY for those telecommunications companies for cooperating with the government after 9/11 (PATRIOTS, you know).  Now the most leftist Democrats are still VOTING against parts of the bill, but they COULD STOP THE BILL.  They are not doing that, by filibuster, but are letting the bill (at least as this is written) PASS and go to the President.  Barack Obma, for example, voted for an Amendment to strip the immunity out of the bill, but is NOT leading any kind of filibuster against the bill.

What the AP/AOL story (surprise--NOT) FAILS to really highlight is that Barack Obama broke yet another "pledge".  He had promised (publicly, as he courted the far LEFT in the nomination fight) to FILIBUSTER any bill which contained retroactive immunity for communications companies.  But Democrats, including Obama, are letting this bill go through in essentially the form Persident Bush proposed.

Now that is a GOOD thing for the country, but again highlights how Obama speaks loudly (or, if you prefer, eloquently), but carries a SMALL stick (apologies to Teddy Roosevelt).  More fundamentally, the main thing Obama seems to really believe in is saying and doing anything which seems, on any particular day, to best advance his chances of being President.  Who knows what we will get if this inexperienced, walking teleprompter becomes President.  Whatever we get, we (the public in general) will DESERVE it.  If the public elects Obama, it KNOWS it is electing a leftist BLANK SLATE who happens to talk well.