One more thing: I really liked the Bill of Rights, when it was still there.

With the signing of the Military Commissions Act yesterday, the ability of the President to imprison anybody he or she wants to, for any length of time, and treat them basically any way they want. With no oversight or checks.

As Keith so eloquently says:

we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:
A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

For more of this admittedly one sided view, watch this 8-minute item.
Or read Wil Wheaton's view from a few weeks ago. As he said:

As I write this, the United States Senate is engaged in a bit of political theater, while they pretend to debate whether or not they will make torture an American value. They are pretending to debate whether or not to give one person -- in this case the president -- the ability remove rights that we've all taken for granted under our Constitution for over two centuries from anyone he (or she, someday) identifies, without any accountability or oversight. They are pretending to debate whether our Democracy even matters, any more.

I know that some of my readers lean a little further right than I do, but I would be interested to hear your take on this. I mean, I can understand (if disagree with) the idea of a stronger Executive branch, but you guys know that a Democrat has to win that office sometime. Do you want HILLARY to have that kind of power?

I admittedly haven't been listening to Neil Boortz lately, although he used to be my biggest source for personal liberties. In my opinion, he's really gotten short sighted in the last few years, focusing on the threat from Islamic Fascism above all others. But where IS he on this? Anyone know?