Bush Is Apparently Above the Law - and the Supreme Court Agrees??!!

The Austin American-Statesman printed an article this week, originally from the LA Times, stating a recent Supreme Court decision to not hear a challenge to a Bush order authorizing wire-tapping.

Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to secret surveillance program

The issue was not really over whether Bush could order electronic eavesdropping on phone calls and emails, but whether he could do it without the approval of a judge. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 says 'the president may order secret wiretapping within the United States to catch foreign agents or terrorists but only with the approval of a special court'. Our egotistical President Bush apparently felt that this act did not pertain to him and shortly after 9-11, ordered The National Security Agency to eavesdrop on conversations or messages if they were "reasonably believed" to be affiliated with terrorism - without that approval from a judge as specified in the above act. In an even sadder turn of events, our Supreme Court apparently agrees that Bush is exempt from obeying our laws.

Oh, where to even start! This is so wrong on so many levels; let's just jump right in. What kind of a precedent is this setting for our country and it's Constitution? If our Commander-in-Chief can invoke any kind of privileges he deems necessary, where does it stop? Because our country experienced a national crisis (9-11-01), doesn't give Bush carte blanche to make up new rules as he goes. Are we going to go back to being forced to allow our country's military to hole up in private homes again should we be attacked by foreign military forces on our on land? I seem to remember that didn't go over so well historically. While that is a rather extreme reference, it is an example of what can happen when leaders are given too much power without any checks or balances. The entire fabric of our country is based on checks and balances - no one person or group having complete control all the time - and this was done for a reason!

For the second issue I have with this, let's reference the old adage 'practice what you preach'. If our President can pick and choose which laws are convenient for him, then why can't the rest of us? I am not talking about extreme examples, such as murder, but let's say maybe I don't feel that I should pay taxes this year because I was laid off from a j0b - creating a crisis in my household. Our Commander-in-Chief has a big responsibility to protect our country, I'll give him that, but that also means he is to uphold a squeaky clean record. He is supposed to follow all the rules. As a parent, if I tell my children not to take things that don't belong to them, but then steal from Wal-mart every week when I see something I can't afford - even if I am still in that household crisis referenced above - how are they ever going to take me seriously? My words then mean nothing.

Lastly, and perhaps the most insignificant of them all, why is it that Bush gets to pick and choose what laws he obeys and gets the Supreme Court's blessing? But former President Clinton gets some shady funds for a real estate development that failed, or gets some adulterous action in the Oval Office, and he is all but crucified! Why the double standard?

President George W. Bush has failed us freedom-loving Amercians during these last 8 years and this is just one more example. What's even scarier, is the White House is currently working up some new legislation to make this all legal before he leaves office at the end of this year. While the Supreme Court doesn't help pass legislation, I'm guessing it sure doesn't hurt to have them on your side. The good news is that we have less than a year left of this guy.

A Push For More Government Funding For Uninsured Kids

An article in The Austin American-Statesman on January 23, 2008, stated that the US House is going to try once again to override Bush's veto of a plan to increase funds, and thereby extend to more families, government subsidized health insurance for children.

House To Try New Override of Children's Health Bill

The bill has already passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin. It passed the House last year, but not with enough of a margin to disallow a veto by President Bush. However, we are not in a crisis situation, because Congress and the President agreed last December to extend funding for all current programs until March 2009.

Basically, this bill raises funding by $35 billion over the next 5 years, allowing for more uninsured children to enroll. Opponents of the bill (Republicans) say the bill is too broad and will drive families away from private insurance, while Congressional Democrats say Republicans want to leave too many children uninsured. Republicans want to increase funding by just $12 billion over the next 5 years.

This topic is one of the most heated debates on Capitol Hill lately. It is a topic I am quite interested in as a parent of four children, and a preschool teacher, working toward teacher certification. Although I have direct interest, it is also a topic all Americans should be concerned with. Is it really in our nation's best interest to have a bunch of sickly or poorly developing children - who will ultimately become the adults working and making decisions for our country - running around? Is it in our best economical interest to have these uninsured children clogging up hospital emergency rooms and racking up bills their parents can't pay? It is my opinion that our society is not prepared for the social burdens and ramifications of having masses of uninsured children now will bring the coming decades. I expect this issue to be raised many more times in the coming years!