|
Only in America Could a Two-Faced Creature
Like McCain Attain Such Media Status
Only in America could a man who has called the mainstream media his "base"
run against that very same media.

Only in America could a man who has been in office for decades run as an "outsider" against the
entrenched interests in Washington. Only in America could a man who is a longtime Republican stalwart run against his
own party, which has governed while controlling most of the institutional levers of power -- the presidency, the Supreme Court
and the Congress -- for much of the past eight years. And only in America could a man who has called the corporatized,
in-the-tank, mainstream media his "base" -- the media that made him its darling and hailed him for his supposed
"straight talk" -- run against that very same media, bashing it figuratively while "peace officers" were
doing so quite literally to journalists in the streets of St. Paul, in a manner unseen since the '60s and the Chicago
days of Richard Daley and the subsequent Nixonian "nattering nabobs of negativity" era. Yes, welcome to America,
land of opportunity, where every politician is a self-styled "change agent" -- yet little ever seems to change. Running
hard against the elite, effete (or as Bill O'Reilly concisely puts it, the "sniveling, left-wing, wine-drinking, brie-eating") media establishment -- while simultaneously chewing on
pork rinds, downing shots of Crown Royal with beer chasers, and quadrennially cozying up to Soccer and Hockey Moms and Nascar
Dads -- is of course a time-honored tradition among political practitioners within both the Republican and the Democratic
wings of America's ruling Property Party. Yet few since the days of Tricky Dick and his attack dog Spiro Agnew have taken
the obligatory attacks on the media to such heights -- or depths, really -- as the McCain-Palin campaign, now effectively
run by the bullet-headed attack dog Steve Schmidt and other acolytes of Karl Rove and the band of merry miscreants most responsible
for the debacle formerly known as the Bush administration. One after another, speakers at the Republican National Convention
unleashed a barrage of attacks on the news media, as the trade journal Broadcasting & Cable reported: As the GOP convention hit its stride Tuesday, after its opening was overshadowed by Hurricane Gustav,
the press became almost as big a target as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), with speech after speech tarring the media as liberal
and elitist. Fred Thompson, the senator-turned-actor whose own campaign for the Republican nomination
ended early, fired the first broadside in his speech Tuesday. On Wednesday, former Republican presidential candidates Mike
Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani joined in before Palin herself took aim. "I'm not a member
of the permanent political establishment," Palin said in her speech accepting the nomination. "And I've learned
quickly these past few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media
consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."
This prompted sustained boos from the
audience at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minneapolis. Meanwhile, beleaguered Big Media news executives
struggled against the unmitigated assaults to defend their coverage. "It's a time-honored marketing ploy, and every
time they bash the media, it means they're not talking about a vision or a plan," CNN President Jon Klein said, while
also predictably trotting out his usual assault on the blogosphere as a sort of arms-length apologia: "This onslaught
about the mainstream media seems woefully time-worn and out of step, considering how new media have become the source of the
scurrilous rumor-mongering on both the Right and the Left. If they want to pick a target, let them pick irresponsible bloggers
who are reporting rumors promiscuously." From literally beating the press outside in the streets (and even threatening them inside their offices) to verbally bashing reporters and executives alike everywhere from the convention podium to select media outlets they favor,
John McChange and his lipsticked pit bull Sarah Palin are counting on the fact we as a culture have developed such a severe
case of ADD that we can no longer ADD one and one and get two! Is there a problem in Washington? Forget the fact that
the Republicans have been running everything there for years -- and elect a Republican "change agent!" Is there
a problem with the ongoing war and occupation of Iraq? Forget the fact that the Republicans have been waging a war there for
years -- and elect a Republican "change agent!" Is there a problem with our media being complicit with those in
power and concealing the truth from the American people? Forget the fact that the Republican candidate for president has benefited
from a cozy relationship with his media "base" for years -- and yes, elect a Republican "change agent,"
who will then, unchanged, crawl right back into bed with that same elite, effete crowd the minute he sets foot in the Oval
Office! Only in America, Land of Opportunity, is everyone free to start over -- and over and over -- endlessly reinventing
themselves. Here, as the poet Allen Ginsberg once noted, "yesterday's newspaper is amnesia." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are
their own.
America's Economic Free Fall[HERE]
CORporate America Prepares for Battle Against Worker Campaign to Roll Back Assault on the Middle Class By Joshua Holland,
AlterNet Big business has prepared a war chest of at least $150 million to stop one of the most progressive pieces of economic
legislation in decades. Read more »
SEND KARL ROVE TO JAIL->HERE!
Massive Economic Disaster Seems Possible -- Will Survivalists Get the Last
Laugh?
With multiple crises on the horizon, survivalist
views don't seem as marginal as they did before.
They used to be paranoid preparation nuts who
built bomb shelters for a place to duck and cover during nuclear dustups with communist heathens, but their tangled roots
go back to the Great Depression for a reason. If you want to get sociological about it, survivalism started out as a response to economic catastrophe. And now, with a cratering stock market, a housing meltdown that has devalued
everything in sight, and skyrocketing prices for food, gas and pretty much everything else, survivalists are preparing for
-- and are prepared for -- the rerun. In fact, they may be the only people in America feeling good about the prospects
of a major crash. And the interesting thing about the once-fringe movement at this moment in history is that survivalism
has now gone green -- at least in theory. From peak oil and food crises all the way to catastrophic payback from that
bitch Mother Earth, there are more reasons to hide than ever. Conventional society as we know it is already undergoing some
disastrous transformations. Ask anyone ducking fires in California, floods in the Midwest or bullets in Baghdad. Maybe it
didn't make sense to run for the hills, stockpile water and food, grow your own vegetables and drugs, or unplug from consumerism
back when America's budget surplus still existed, its armies weren't burning up all the nation's revenue and its
infrastructure wasn't being outsourced to a globalized work force. But those days are gone, daddy, gone. What's
coming up is weirder. Author, social critic and overall hilarious dude James Kunstler tackled that weirdness, otherwise known as an incoming post-oil dystopia, in his recent novel, World Made by Hand, which has since become one of a handful of survivalist classics. And as Kunstler sees it, whether you are talking about gun nuts or green pioneers, at least you are talking. "At
least they're aware that we've entered the early innings of what could easily become a very disruptive period of our
history," the Clusterfuck Nation columnist explains. "Most of them are responding constructively rather than just defensively. They're much more
interested in gardening and animal husbandry than firearms." Not that the gun nuts have gone away. Their ranks
have just diversified. "The gun nuts have been on the scene longer than the peak oil argument has been in play,"
he adds. "They were initially preoccupied with Big Government and its accompanying narrative fantasy of fascist oppression,
which is why they adopted a fascist tone themselves. But peak-oil survivalists are different from the Ruby Ridge generation.
They don't think that a bolt-hole in the woods is a very promising strategy. We have no idea at this point what the level
of social cohesion or disorder may be, but if the rural areas, especially the agricultural centers, become too lawless for
farming, then we'll be in pretty severe trouble because there will be nothing for us to eat." That's not
on the to-do list of author and SurvivalBlog owner James Rawles, who has been getting asked more and more questions by a mainstream press finally waking to the consequences of disaster capitalism, climate crisis and the hyperreal dream of bottomless consumption. He has fielded questions from the
New York Times, and he has taken an online beating from conscientious pubs like Grist, but he hasn't gone Hollywood. The times, which are a-changin', have
caught up to him. "There is greater interest in preparedness these days because the fragility of our economy, lengthening
chains of supply and the complexity of the technological infrastructure have become apparent to a broader cross section of
the populace," Rawles wrote to me via e-mail (but only after asking how many unique monthly visitors AlterNet commanded).
"All parties concerned may not realize it, but the left-of-center greens calling for local economies and encouraging
farmers markets have a tremendous amount in common with John Birchers decrying globalist bankers and gun owners complaining
about their constitutional rights. At the core, for all of them, is the recognition that big, entrenched, centralized power
structures are not the answer. They are, in fact, the problem." Fair enough. But that broad brush fails to recognize
the complexities of the very community it is purporting to try to establish. Indeed, difference is what survivalists seem
to be running from, whether it is historically the difference between blacks and whites, secularists and true believers, or
simply the haves and have-nots. It is that latter crowd that the survivalists seem most worried about. Their separation from
society at large is arguably a retreat from community rather than a striving toward it. "I'd say that survivalism
is indeed a celebration of community," Rawles asserts. "It is the embodiment of America's traditional can-do
spirit of self-reliance that settled the frontier." But that's also a generalization, especially when one considers
that the word "settled" is a coded reduction for a "near-genocidal wipeout of the frontier's native populations,"
most if not all of whom were perfecting a survivalist ethic by maximizing their skill sets and living in symbiosis with the
land that provided them what they needed in food, tools and medicine. In fact, those settlements would have been hard-pressed
to exist without what Rawles earlier described as a "centralized power structure," known as the expansionist United
States government and its military, paving the road forward. Each self-reliant mythology carries within it grains of complicity
in the community at large, which is a fancy way of saying there's nowhere to run, baby, nowhere to hide. This is
especially true today in our hyperreal, hyperconsuming 21st century, where survivalism has become more of a gadget fantasy
than an earnest grasp for community. "It seems a natural human impulse that we are hard-wired to follow as circumstances
require," Kunstler says, "although it is constrained by social and cultural conditioning. To some degree, in our
consumer culture, survivalism is related to the gear fetishism you see in popular magazines that purport to be about sporting
adventures, but are really about acquiring snazzy equipment. America in 2008 has become a cartoon culture of Hollywood violence
that promotes grandiose power fantasies of hyper-individualism and vigilante justice. Add guns and economic hardship, and
spice it up with ethnic grievances, and the recipe is not very appetizing." This future cultural, environmental
and geopolitical miasma is where the survivalist and the mainstream converge in agreement. Both camps, pardon the pun, are
convinced that we're screwed down the road. "The next Great Depression will be a tremendous leveler,"
Rawles prophesies. "If anything, life in the 22nd century will more closely resemble the 19th century than the 20th century.
Sadly, the 21st century will probably be remembered as the time of the Great Die-Off." "I don't consider
it a total wipeout," Kunstler counters. "It's a very big change, but people are resilient and resourceful. Look,
imagine if you were a person who had survived the Second World War in Europe, and you were walking around Berlin in the spring
of 1946, a year after the end of the war. A once-magnificent city has been reduced to rubble. Your culture is lying in ashes.
Yet, people pick up and rebuild." That is, if they're sticking together. If they're scattered and fending
for themselves, and taking armed retreat defense tips from SurvivalBlog, that makes rebuilding a bit more complicated. Which,
in the end, is where survivalism is most ambiguous. Is it a growing population of forward-looking realists who are smartly
preparing for the die-off brought on by climate crisis and economic collapse, so they can pick up themselves and their people,
and rebuild with that "can-do" spirit, as Rawles calls it? Or are they simply gadget-fascinated fundamentalists
afraid of change and challenge, so afraid that they'd rather hide and hoard than join the fight? The jury is still
out. But, according to Rawles, it will soon have its diversity mirrored by survivalism's changing demographic. "I
think that in the next couple of decades," he explains, "we will witness the formation of some remarkable intentional
communities that will feature some unlikely bedfellows: anarchists and Ayn Rand readers, Mennonites and gun enthusiasts, Luddites
and techno-geeks, fundamentalist Christians and Gaia worshippers, tree huggers and horse wranglers. We welcome them all. Because
the threats are clearly manifold: peak oil, derivatives meltdowns, pandemics, food shortages, market collapses, terrorism,
state-sponsored global war and more. In a situation this precarious, I believe that it is remarkably naive to think that mere
geographical isolation will be sufficient to shelter communities from the predation of evildoers." =================================================
Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
A new class of everyday spies, from paramedics to utility workers, are being recruited to be "terrorism liason
officers."
The full scale of Bush's assault on our civil liberties may not be known
until years after he's left office. At the moment, all we can do is get glimpses here or there of what's going
on. And the latest one to come to my attention is the dispatching of police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and
utility workers as so-called "terrorism liaison officers," according to a report by Bruce Finley in the Denver Post. They are entrusted with hunting for "suspicious activity," and then they report
their findings, which end up in secret government databases. What constitutes "suspicious activity," of course,
is in the eye of the beholder. But a draft Justice Department memo on the subject says that such things as "taking photos
of no apparent aesthetic value" or "making notes" could constitute suspicious activity, Finley wrote. The
states where this is going on include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Washington,
D.C. Dozens more are planning to do so, Finley reports. Colorado alone has 181 Terrorism Liaison Officers, and
some of them are from the private sector, such as Xcel Energy. Mark Silverstein of the Colorado ACLU told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! that this reminds him of the old TIPS program, which "caused so much controversy that Congress eventually shut it down.
But it is reemerging in other forms." Silverstein warns that there will be thousands and thousands of "completely
innocent people going about completely innocent and legal activities" who are going to end up in a government database. On
the web, I found a description for a Terrorism Liaison Officer Position in the East Bay. Reporting to the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the city of Oakland, these officers "would
in effect function as ad hoc members" of the East Bay Terrorism Early Warning Group, which consists of local police officers
and firefighters. The "suggested duties" of these Terrorism Liaison Officers include: "source person
for internal or external inquiry," and "collecting, reporting retrieving and sharing of materials related to terrorism.
Such materials might include ... books journals, periodicals, and videotapes." Terrorism Liaison Officers would
be situated not only in agencies dealing with the harbor, the airports, and the railroads, but also "University/Campus." And
the private sector would be involved, too. "The program would eventually be expanded to include Health Care personnel
and representatives from private, critical infrastructure entities, with communication systems specifically tailored to their
needs." In this regard, Terrorism Liaison Officers resemble InfraGard members. (See "The FBI Deputizes Business".) This FBI-private sector liaison group now consists of more than 26,000 members, who have their own secure channels of communication
and are shielded, as much as possible, from scrutiny. Terrorism Liaison Officers connect up with so-called "Fusion
Centers": intelligence sharing among public safety agencies as well as the private sector. The Department of Justice
has come up with "Fusion Center Guidelines" that discuss the role of private sector participants. "The
private sector can offer fusion centers a variety of resources," it says, including "suspicious incidents and activity
information." It also recommends shielding the private sector. "To aid in sharing this sensitive information,
a Non-Disclosure Agreement may be used. The NDA provides private sector entities an additional layer of security, ensuring
the security of private sector proprietary information and trade secrets," the document states. As if that's
not enough, the Justice Department document recommends that "fusion centers and their leadership encourage appropriate
policymakers to legislate the protection of private sector data provided to fusion centers." ===============================================================
Bush-Led 'Disaster Capitalism' Exploits Worldwide Misery to Make
a Buck
The Iraq disaster and rising gas and food prices have people across the globe
in a state of fear and shock. It's high times for Bush & Co.
Once oil passed $140
a barrel, even the most rabidly right-wing media hosts had to prove their populist cred by devoting a portion of every show
to bashing Big Oil. Some have gone so far as to invite me on for a friendly chat about an insidious new phenomenon: "disaster
capitalism." It usually goes well -- until it doesn't.
For instance, "independent conservative"
radio host Jerry Doyle and I were having a perfectly amiable conversation about sleazy insurance companies and inept politicians
when this happened: "I think I have a quick way to bring the prices down," Doyle announced. "We've invested
$650 billion to liberate a nation of 25 million people. Shouldn't we just demand that they give us oil? There should be
tankers after tankers backed up like a traffic jam getting into the Lincoln Tunnel, the Stinkin' Lincoln, at rush hour
with thank-you notes from the Iraqi government ... . Why don't we just take the oil? We've invested it liberating
a country. I can have the problem solved of gas prices coming down in ten days, not ten years."
There were
a couple of problems with Doyle's plan, of course. The first was that he was describing the biggest stickup in world history.
The second, that he was too late: "We" are already heisting Iraq's oil, or at least are on the cusp of doing
so.
It's been ten months since the publication of my book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,
in which I argue that today's preferred method of reshaping the world in the interest of multinational corporations is
to systematically exploit the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies moments of great shock and crisis. With the
globe being rocked by multiple shocks, this seems like a good time to see how and where the strategy is being applied.
And the disaster capitalists have been busy -- from private firefighters already on the scene in Northern California's
wildfires, to land grabs in cyclone-hit Burma, to the housing bill making its way through Congress. The bill contains little
in the way of affordable housing, shifts the burden of mortgage default to taxpayers and makes sure that the banks that made
bad loans get some payouts. No wonder it is known in the hallways of Congress as "The Credit Suisse Plan," after
one of the banks that generously proposed it.
Iraq Disaster: We Broke It, We (Just) Bought It
But these cases of disaster capitalism are amateurish compared with what is unfolding at Iraq's oil ministry. It
started with no-bid service contracts announced for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and Total (they have yet to be signed but
are still on course). Paying multinationals for their technical expertise is not unusual. What is odd is that such contracts
almost invariably go to oil service companies -- not to the oil majors, whose work is exploring, producing and owning carbon
wealth. As London-based oil expert Greg Muttitt points out, the contracts make sense only in the context of reports that the
oil majors have insisted on the right of first refusal on subsequent contracts handed out to manage and produce Iraq's
oil fields. In other words, other companies will be free to bid on those future contracts, but these companies will win.
One week after the no-bid service deals were announced, the world caught its first glimpse of the real prize. After years
of back-room arm-twisting, Iraq is officially flinging open six of its major oil fields, accounting for around half of its
known reserves, to foreign investors. According to Iraq's oil minister, the long-term contracts will be signed within
a year. While ostensibly under control of the Iraq National Oil Company, foreign firms will keep 75 percent of the value of
the contracts, leaving just 25 percent for their Iraqi partners.
That kind of ratio is unheard of in oil-rich
Arab and Persian states, where achieving majority national control over oil was the defining victory of anticolonial struggles.
According to Muttitt, the assumption until now was that foreign multinationals would be brought in to develop brand-new fields
in Iraq -- not to take over ones that are already in production and therefore require minimal technical support. "The
policy was always to allocate these fields to the Iraq National Oil Company," he told me. This is a total reversal of
that policy, giving INOC a mere 25 percent instead of the planned 100 percent.
FOR FULL STORY CLICK
THE TITLE LINK!
WATCH:Officers Leave Bullets in car [click here]
|
|
CORRESPONDENCE FROM GENE TAYLOR, CONGRESSMAN-D,MS.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me about
pending changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I always appreciate hearing from the people of South Mississippi
on important issues.
In December of 2005, the New
York Times published a story that President Bush had issued a secret executive order in October of 2001 directing the National
Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving United States
citizens and persons who were reportedly suspected to be members or affiliates of al Qaeda. The article stated that
the NSA had conducted these surveillance operations on American soil without obtaining court approval beforehand as required
by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
After the story was published, the Bush Administration
confirmed the existence of the program, and stated that the President believed his order to be fully supported by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States. As a result of this troubling revelation, the NSA surveillance program was challenged
both on legal and constitutional grounds.
As you know, our Founding Fathers wisely created a system of checks
and balances to ensure that the three branches of the federal government share the balance of power. The President,
like every other citizen, must obey the laws written by Congress. In order to conduct domestic surveillance for foreign
intelligence information purposes, the law requires that the President must first obtain court permission, and I fully agree
with that requirement.
Congress sought to strike a balance between national security interests and civil liberties
when it passed FISA in 1978. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress amended FISA when
it passed the USA Patriot Act to require that a significant purpose of surveillance covered by FISA must be to gather foreign
intelligence information. I voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act in 2001, which the President said was absolutely necessary
to help his administration fight terrorism. I voted for the extension of the Act's provisions prior to their scheduled
expiration at the end of 2005, which the President said was also absolutely necessary.
In addition, I voted
in favor of H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, when the House considered it on September 28, 2006.
Although not enacted into law before 109th Congress adjourned, this measure would have made additional changes to FISA that
I believe would help our nation's intelligence agencies gather information on terrorists and terrorist organizations that
use newly available forms of communications such as the internet, blackberries, cell phones, and satellite phones -- technologies
that did not exist when the law was enacted in 1978. The measure also contained very stringent rules stating that the
only circumstances under which electronic surveillance without court permission would be permitted is when the President certifies
to the Congressional Intelligence committees that it is vital to the national security of the United States to do so.
On August 3, 2007, the House considered H.R. 3356, Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and
the Constitution Act of 2007. This bill, introduced by the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, consisted of a compromise worked out between the Chairman and the Director of National Intelligence.
The bill gave the intelligence community the tools they needed to deal with new technologies while retaining the oversight
provided by FISA. H.R. 3356 was considered under a motion to suspend the rules that required a 2/3 vote for passage.
I voted for the bill but it failed on a 218 to 207 vote.
On August 4, 2007, the House considered S. 1927, a Republican
introduced alternative to H.R. 3356 that had passed the Senate on a 60-28 vote the previous day. This bill, which passed
the House by a 227-183 vote, was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007. S. 1927 amended FISA by removing
from supervision of the FISA Court surveillance of communications that begin or end in a foreign country. The bill contained
a sunset provision that will cause the amendments made to FISA to expire within six months of enactment. Given the clear
need to give our intelligence services the tools they need to gather information on terrorists using new technologies, I voted
for the bill. The six-month sunset provision gave Congress and the President time to develop a compromise that provides
more substantial oversight of the process.
On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773,
the RESTORE Act of 2007. That bill would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and add additional
rules and limitations to protect both our national security and the privacy of our citizens. Among its provisions, it
prevents the intelligence community from monitoring communications between an individual inside the United States and another
individual overseas without a FISA warrant unless the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence deem an emergency
situation exists. I voted for that bill because I thought it balanced the right of U.S. citizens to freedom from warrantless
searches versus national security needs.
On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, their version of
H.R. 3773. The Senate version grants retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that may have assisted the
federal government in monitoring the communications of suspected terrorists. The Senate version would also The House
version of the bill does not include immunity for the telecommunications companies. Senate and House leaders attempted
to extend S. 1927 in order to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the two latest bills but,
because of the opposition of the President and Republican members of Congress, this attempt failed and the temporary law expired.
In response to the Senate action, the House passed another version of H.R. 3773 that did not offer blanket immunity to telecommunications
companies but instead offered telecommunications companies the ability to present classified information to a judge in private
without the presence of the plaintiff. I voted for that bill but the President has threatened to veto it if passed by
the Senate. As of this date, the latest version of H.R. 3773 is under consideration by the Senate.
It's
important to remember that the main FISA law remains on the books and if intelligence officials become aware of an unknown
terrorist organization not already under surveillance, they can get emergency approval to begin surveillance within minutes
with FISA court approval to follow within 72 hours. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any FISA amendments
provide the government the tools it needs to protect the nation while also ensuring that warrantless surveillance of U.S citizens
is prevented. I support efforts to reconcile these two bills and come up with a bill that will both defend our country
and protect our freedoms. This process would be easier if the President stopped the political posturing and fear mongering
and began working with Congress to develop a law we can all support.
I do not support giving any President
the authority to spy on Americans in violation of the Constitution. Despite the efforts of some to turn this matter
into a political issue, it goes far beyond anyone's politics. The leader of our nation must respect and obey the
statutory laws written by Congress and the case law rulings written by the Supreme Court. As Chief Executive, the President
has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. Above all else, he must respect and obey the Constitution,
for it is the highest law of the land. We are a nation governed by laws, not by the whims of individuals who temporarily
hold public office. For too long, the President has sought to define the process and procedures by which this surveillance
can be conducted and that is wrong. The President has consistently resisted the attempts of Congress to exercise effective
oversight of intelligence collection efforts and to amend FISA to provide the legal basis for his intelligence collection
efforts.
Again, your thoughts on these matters are very much appreciated. Know that I will continue
to carefully monitor the findings of congressional hearings and any legislation seeking to address this serious issue in the
110th Congress. If I may be of further service to you, please let me know.
Sincerely,
GENE TAYLOR Member of Congress
|