Bush locates constitution's sphincter, forcibly inserts penis.

Remember high school civics? Social studies? Government?

I do. I distinctly remember covering subjects like checks and balances and due process.

See, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances by mandating three equally powerful branches of government: Executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch is split into two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. The system was designed in such a manner as to restrict one party from taking too much power. The founders thought the chances that one party could gain control of the presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court were astronomical, and they were right. Astronomical, but not impossible.

What we have now is a government completely controlled by the Republican Party. The system of checks and balances has failed, thanks to well-meaning evangelicals and perhaps the worst administration this country has seen since Nixon.

Now, I voted for Bush the first time around, when I was a good Catholic, single-issue voter with my head up my ass, and I am truly truly sorry.

The Republican party has too much power. This has been illustrated time and again throughout the Bush presidency. It's frightening. The Republicans have used a national tragedy as a springboard to corruption. When the terrorists attacked, the United States had a monster to confront, which we did, briefly, but like a kid who needs Ritalin, our government moved on to a bigger, more exciting toy.

They rushed questionable legislation through Congress in the name of the USA PATRIOT Act. Most people aren't aware this is an acronym. Some of us cried foul about the restrictions of civil liberties, but most of America, it seems, was fine with sacrificing a few things we don't use for the sake of security. There were discussions on bulletin boards about whether torture is ever justified (not that it would ever happen, because that's where the people would draw the line), or whether freedom is such a great idea in the first place.

Naturally, the more skeptical of us, and those of us into dystopian fiction had a few alarms go off. We were, of course, promptly dismissed, because it'll all be over pretty quick, and we'd be fine if we just don't break the rules.

Well, it turns out torture was going on, and, of course, the flag wavers all dismissed it as not being that bad, and as a necessary tool. And besides, it's not technically torture under the Geneva Convention. I mean, luckily we have that in place to prevent any real wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, we dissenters are labeled weak, traitorous, and unamerican.

Besides, it's not like they're illegally tapping our phones or running secret prisons overseas. That's where we'll draw the line, but there's just no way that will happen.

Well, it turns out they are tapping our phones and running secret prisons. But it's all necessary to fight the Enemy, the evil people who hate us and our freedom. We still have most of our liberties, provided we watch what we do and say. They're the monster, not us. Besides, it's not like they're going to overturn the Geneva convention or suspend our right to a fair and speedy trial, right?

Right??

Because that's where we'll draw the line.

Wait, what's this? I was distracted by that Mark Foley scandal. You mentioned something about a new law? Well, it can't be that bad. I mean, it's not like they've given the president the right to interpret the Geneva Convention as he sees fit.

It's not like they've allowed enemy combatants to be detained indefinitely. Well, maybe they have, but at least the know the charges against them, right?

No?

Well, they can at least appeal to the judge about...

Not that either?

Well, there must be a pretty strict way of determining who is or isn't an enemy combatant, though, right? I mean, it's not like Bush or Rumsfeld can put together their own tribunal to decide that, say, I am an enemy for posting on my blog, right? That's protected under the Constitution.

Well, ok, maybe they technically could decide that, but I'd be able to appeal and prove my status as an upstanding American citizen.

Oh wait, no I can't. I don't get to see a judge.

But I haven't done anything.

Doesn't matter.

But I should still feel safe, right? Because our government would never abuse its power.

And yet people still complain about the Big Brother comparisons. They insist that the government has our best interests in mind, and we should trust them.

I will trust the government when they earn my trust, and I will stop the Big Brother comparisons when they're no longer warranted.

Until then, I will enjoy my freedom to think, speak, and act as I please. I will maintain that George W. Bush should be removed from office, that Dick Cheney is a horrible excuse for a human being, that Donald Rumsfeld should have been a blowjob, and that those who continue to support this administration are the real traitors.

This is still the land of the free, right?

- Neoconservative Government Lackey