Democratic Congress votes to end Rule of Law as favor to the most unpopular Republican President in history

The Fourth Amendment

Civil libertarian Michelle Malkin is thrilled.

Hey, but good news! Democrats (including the Democratic presidential nominee) can now say they aren't "weak" on national security because they cynically and without principle traded away one of the basic foundations of the liberty and security of American citizens - one of the very things that the United States of America was brought into existence to protect. Expletive expletive expletive ... what the hell? Is it possible that Democrats could be anymore daft? They've been doing this dance for years. When, when are they ever going to realize that the only reason they appear "weak" on national security measures is that they continue to capitulate and let Republicans define "national security."

And who suffers? The American people who lose more and more of their rights to a goverment filled with plutocrats who claim and pretend to work for We the People but who in fact work for the rich and the powerful.

How much does it cost to kill the 4th Amendment? Ask the telecom lobbysts, because that's what they just bought.

We live in an America where a President - if a Democrat - can get impeached for lying about a consensual sexual affair with an adult, but a Republican President can wage an illegal covert war and lie about it, e.g, "We did not--repeat, did not--trade weapons or anything else for hostages" or can commit 30 felonies by violating a law duly passed by Congress and (what used to be) the Fourth Amendment rights of the entire nation and lie about it, e.g. ""[a]ny time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ... a court order"; and his "punishment" is to have the Democratic Congress legalize it.