Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama Defends Surveillance Programs as Legal and Limited [View all]Psephos
(8,032 posts)Strong offenses require strong condemnation. I don't use "Obummer" myself but I can get why someone would.
"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."
They're shredding the Bill of Rights and stealing private information like thieves in the night. All behind a mommy's skirt of top-secret mumbo-jumbo. Because if even one life is saved it's worth it, and if you have nothing to hide, why are you upset, and besides it's for the children.
Wake up, it's not for the children. It's for the Bilderberg Group and elites who count on the sheep not to notice.
And you want us to soft-pedal the condemnation after a whistle-blower risked his life to bring this to us?
What's your take on this criminality? What words of condemnation are you using?