That is the "official" statement of the Bush administration, Baker, and while I want to believe it, the fact is, we do not have access to the information to verify whether this is true or not. The fact that Bush backtracked to admit as much as he has makes me suspicious.

I didn't include the information because I haven't seen independent verification of it, but there are allegations that the wiretaps have included Quaker groups within the United States, hardly a group that could be considered to have links to terror.

The fact is, though, it didn't start with Bush or the NSA. Do you really feel that the government should have the right to seize all assets of a person accused of drug possession but never criminally convicted? It HAS happened in different jurisdictions across the United States, Baker. There have been several news stories about seizures like this in the state of Louisiana over the years. Regardless of how we feel about drugs, it makes little to no sense to use our opposition to drugs as a right to completely destroy someone's life and forfeit their assets to the state.

The same could be said about the unConstitutional authority given CPS in many states. Families routinely lose their children simply because of poverty and/or ignorance, and entirely without due process. As with drugs, families are usually presumed guilty until proven innocent, and databases are being established to track families from state to state on the mere SUSPICION of abuse. The convenience of anonymous reporting allows someone to make all manner of claims against another person with no repercussions against themselves whatsoever. I have met the burden of proof to establish this as fact, as well as the Constitutional violations that routinely take place.

While I believe it is wrong to continually lobby false allegations against this administration simply because of one's political leanings, it is an even GREATER wrong to suggest that, because Bush is President, that is a position that puts him above scrutiny. The fact is, there are things that NEED to be fixed, and NEED to be fixed desperately and IMMEDIATELY, and that can't come about unless we have the freedom to question.

I am against government help for the poor, Baker, but for a reason. Because that's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB! If we expect the government to underwrite every pet project of ours, it stands to reason it will only continue to get larger until it is either completely unmanageable and we have become a socialist state. Heck, even the GOP USED to favor a small government.

Calling me "against the war on terror" is a nice sound bite and a nice talking point, Baker, and  I congratulate you for it. But it is intellectually dishonest, and as such, is FAR beneath you. I am not against working to fight terror, but our enemy must be clearly defined and our investigations must be within the law. What we have at present is the fact that those charged with enforcing the law are those currently engaged in BREAKING the very laws they are charged to enforce. The fact is, I currently have to stand vigil at the base of the stairs to the children's section of the library, and my children have to carry cards on them at all times demanding that they have a lawyer present before questioning because of the unConstitutional actions of CPS, and knowing that fact, I don't find it unreasonable to assume the same unConstitutional acts are going on in the war on terror.

Add to this the fact that Bush wants no sunset clause on the US Patriot Act and that is in itself suspicious. A war has a clearly defined enemy and a clearly defined and realistic objective. Ours has neither. "Terror" has been determined to be anything from al Qaeda operatives to simple protestors (first amendment, anyone?). Our "objective" is to eliminate terror from the face of the earth, which could arguably be construed as the complete elimination of all violent crime. Guess what? That will never happen, much as we'd like it. Do you feel the Bill of Rights was written on a whim, Baker? Were the Bill of Rights meant to have a sunset clause, or did Patrick Henry truly MEAN what he said when he said "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"?

As for the drug legalization argument, Baker, it is again a matter of two sets of justice. A great current example is Dwight Gooden, the former baseball great, who is currently sitting in jail on violation of probation, despite the fact that many without his financial means would have been locked up for life years ago. A friend of mine from childhood came up against this a few years back on Oklahoma's "three strikes" law: he had never been convicted of anything more than possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, but his third conviction had to be pled down to keep him from spending the rest of his natural life in jail. While there's a tendency not to sympathize with him (and I would agree, he proceeded knowing the consequences, especially after his first conviction), the question must be asked why we are a society that deems it acceptable to let child rapists walk while we incarcerate potheads for life?

The fact is, Baker, your own party used to champion smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Now, the GOP has begun championing BIGGER government and more government programs (which require increased taxation to fund). I would LOVE to be able to go down and change my affiliation to what the Republican party USED to be. But the fact is, the Republican party ISN'T that anymore, and it won't be until/unless the "old line" Republicans start holding their own leadership accountable.