The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Now here's George W. Bush, presidential impostor, lying about how he has authorized violations of this law, from the White House's own website, from April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Further on in the speech, however, he was frighteninly candid about how far he and his criminal gang were prepared to go:
. And we needed to change the whole attitude about how we protect the homeland. We'll do everything we can to stay on the offensive.Apparently, even to the point of tossing out the Constitution. Who needs to fear Osama (still on the loose, by the way) when we've got our own domestic forces destroying our protections?
4 comments:
I've never been one to engage in Olaf-baiting, but one still wonders: If the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales-Rice cabal of sociopaths [301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder --Ed.] sees fit to deny validity to (among others) the Geneva Convention, the Fourth Amendment, the Kyoto Accord, and the theory of evolution, are we still secure in our right to bear arms? I'd hate to think those pledged to keep us safe might see a threat in an armed populace. The Second Amendment is safe,...isn't it?
Here's a recent quote from Dick:
"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area. Especially in the day and age we live in … the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy."
The question burning in my mind is why? Why are they doing this? Is it as simple as money and oil? What is going on?
A Judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that religion is not science. So at least evolution is safe...
Just change 'homeland' to 'fatherland' and that should about do it.
Post a Comment