Red blogule to the Dear Compassionate Leader

This man has been humiliated by John Paul II when he decided to launch his illegal war. But just because the Pope accepted to meet the Stubborn Again Christian before last year's elections, just because both were on Terry Schiavo's parents side last week, George Walker Bush wants to attend the funerals of this great defensor of "liberty". A small man trying to get a sun tan from a great man's radiance. Over his dead body. Because he couldn't stand the stare of a moral and mortal watcher. Pitiful.
Karol Wojtyla could be stubborn too, but at times only, and this man was truly compassionate. He established interesting ties with other religions but in order to preserve the Church he didn't allow any evolution to alter the dogma at a time when it was badly needed. His successor should leverage on this more stable ground to make the necessary moves into the XXIst century.

Red blogule to the Department Of Justice - "Preserving life and liberty" or Propaganda 101

The Department Of Justice proposes a justification to the Patriot Act on its "Preserving life and liberty" website (http://www.lifeandliberty.gov), with a special focus on "dispelling the myths" because this is about providing truth to those who dare objecting to the Propaganda and refusing "the pursuit of Happiness" (ignorance).
Note the site's title : this Administration sure knows how to preserve liberty (at the cost of thousands of lives, the apology of torture and the negation of justice), and it just proved it knew how to preserve life (theotherapeutical harassment for Terri Shiavo, not one finger lifted for Columbine II).
Right under the title lies a quote from the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted..." And that's it. They don't go any further. "Governments are instituted" in this context means this is the right, self-evident unalienable and secure body which shall do the job. Yet, I'll complete the quote, just for the education of the masses (not for fun, alas) : "... among Men, deriving their JUST POWERS from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, that WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT." This site is definitely a masterpiece in editing for the sake of Propaganda...
Their justifications are very clear : the Patriot act...
... "Allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror" ("courts could permit law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes"... translation : we decide who is a terrorist)
... "Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection" (translation : federal agents can act as terrorists, kidnap anyone anywhere anytime and evade the detection of human right groups)
... "Allows law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists" (translation : get rid of all safeguards to democracy. tipping off journalists is just as dangerous as tipping off terrorists so lets get rid ov'em too)
..."Allows federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases" (strange : they care about legality only when corporate money is involved)
... "Enhanced the inadequate maximum penalties for various crimes likely to be committed by terrorists" (translation : illegal detention without any proof, torture or death for the luckiest. shall we consider "likely to be" as "not committed yet but with such a profile it's just as well" ?)
... "Enhanced a number of conspiracy penalties" ("conspiracy" as in "I wish Bush weren't reelected" ? "penalties" as in "torture" ?)
The propaganda goes on with the "support of the people" section where polls justify the Patriot Act :
=> These two questions were asked by USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll on August 29, 2003, at a time when the heat was not at its peak on the Patriot Act : "Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" and "Based on what you have read or heard, do you think the Patriot Act goes too far, is about right, or does not go far enough in restricting people's civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?".
=> These two questions were asked even earlier (July 31, 2003) by a very trustable propaganda tool (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics) : "After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act which, in part, gives federal officials wider authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques. Some people say the Patriot Act is a necessary and effective tool in preventing terrorist attacks, while others say the act goes too far and could violate the civil liberties of average Americans. Which comes closer to your view - overall, would you say the Patriot Act is a good thing for America or a bad thing for America?" and "To the best of your knowledge have you or a member of your family had your civil rights affected by the Patriot Act?"
Now moving on to the "stories and articles" section : the first quote is an editorial from a very conservative magazine, National Review and the rest is a selection you would expect from a political brochure but not from a Government's official site.
This is a textbook example of a dictatorship justifying itself. Stephane MOT on a forum