So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?Ok, so it's two sentences. Now, another interesting piece of news came out today, which was:
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.Now I purposely left out the commentary - or what could be considered commentary - from the article because I wanted to point out the fundamental belief held by the Bush administration that certain Constitutional rights did not always apply, and we aren't talking that they did not apply to foreigners or to terrorists, but that they did not apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS. Can you even possibly imagine what Lush would say if either President Obama or President Clinton had said that our first and fourth amendment rights had to be "subordinated" for the good of the country? Someone would have to get that hulking slob an Oxycontin, because he would blow fat deposit.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote.
President Obama is actually working away from some of the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration, yet Rollie-Pollie Limbaugh is somehow certain that "individual liberty [will not be] the foundation [of the United States]"? You mean our individual liberty to speak our minds, our individual liberty to a free press, and our individual protections against warrantless searches that BushCo. didn't think we had, you raging hypocrite?
