Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Over lunch with my friend Eric last week, we started talking about it, and I began blurting unintelligible dribble in an irate rant. Obviously, I wasn't ready yet. I'll try very hard to get it out here, but bear with me if I stray in to a rant... I'm still recovering.



I feel that I need to include the text of the fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I will be referencing it throughout this piece, and it will be easier to follow along if we are all reading from the same Constitution.



U.S. CONSTITUION - AMENDMENT IV



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.



The same week that I heard the news break of the wiretaps, I was visiting my family in Florida for the Holidays. My first reaction was disbelief... then the mourning for our Constitution began to creep in to my psyche. (see AMENDMENT IV)



Finally, the anger worked its way to the top. For my money, I believe that the best display of the idiocy of King George in 2005 came right at the end. December 17, 2005 live from the Roosevelt Room in the President's Weekly Radio Address where Bush acknowledged openly that he had indeed authorized illegal wiretaps on American citizens. The best part of the address was where he concluded the speech with:



"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States" (see AMENDMENT IV)



The full transcript of the Dec. 17 Radio Address There are three main issues in his closing statement.

1.) How does violating our liberties as citizens, protect our civil liberties? Does he even know what civil liberties are?



2.) Our Constitution explicitly condones search without warrant. The creation of the F.I.S.A. court makes it easy to obtain a warrant, even after the search in cases of time factors. Bush's statement just doesn't make sense! He should have said, "The American people expect me to do everything in I can think of, Constitution or Not, Laws or Not; to protect them in exchange for their Civil Liberties".



3.) In complete denial of any law breaking, he insists that he will continue with this illegal program. He never doubted for a second to take it to the Congress for approval after the cat was out of the bag. He knew that the Congress would NOT have authorized his actions. Even with a Republican majority... Congressmen would not risk their re-election over civil liberty violations. Many Republican Congressmen have a hard enough time with the Patriot Act.

On April, 20, 2004, President Bush gave a pro-Patriot Act Speech in Buffalo, New York in which he said, "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". The full transcript of this speech is available on The White House website



Liar, Liar... Pants on FIRE!

This is the equivalent of someone looking you straight in the eye, and unflinchingly lying to you. According the DSM IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition, one could diagnose George Bush having an Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Here is the DSM IV Checklist to diagnose Antisocial Personality Disorder:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.

(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

B. The individual is at least age 18 years.


C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.


D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

The other and perhaps more important issue is that this story broke in the fall of 2004. In the mainstream media, I have only heard this fact mentioned once. ONCE! Now we are on our way to chopping down the First Amendment.

The New York Times took the story to the White House and was asked to sit on the story as an issue of National Security. The New York Times obliged. One year later, when the story finally comes out, the Bush Regime starts its spin machine and lambastes the irresponsibility of the New York Times for printing the story, and sets out on a mission to find the person who leaked the information. Bush stated in his address, "Revealing classified information is illegal". Duh, but doesn't this leak fall under the protections of the Whistle-blower Act? After all, the leak merely exposed the law-breaking ways of our Executive.

The Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

Bush's comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists--in fact, all American Muslims, period--have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so.


Today, the A.C.L.U. and the Center for Constitutional Rights have filed lawsuits against the government. The White House scoffed and declared the lawsuits `frivolous'. (see AMENDMENT IV)