Shh...they might be listening.

I found this article on Bush's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to be quite interesting. It's terrifying that this all encompassing "terrorist" umbrella allows them to define "terrorist" and therefore redefine "terrorist" as they please to help push their evil (fighting?) agenda. I'll give you some examples of the new "terrorists":

1. My husband. One drunken night he yelled at a hotel clerk for not parking the car or something. Well, the hotel clerk called the police and they tried to charge Andy with "terrorism" (note he yelled but never touched the guy). Jerk? maybe. Terrorist? no.

2. Barack Obama. Well not a direct terrorist but the "pal" of one. I think based on that alone he probably falls under the category of "legally okay to spy on".

3. Me. I snuck more than 4 oz. of liquid through security and onto an airplane. It didn't blow up because it was shampoo but it is clearly against the rules.

"And one Justice Department attorney had his house raided and his children's computers seized as part of the FBI's probe into who leaked the warrant-less spying to The New York Times. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even suggested the reporters could be prosecuted under antiquated treason statutes."

"If new whistle-blowers do emerge, Fredrickson hopes the additional information will spur Congress to form a new Church Committee -- the 1970s bipartisan committee that investigated and condemned the government's secret spying on peace activists, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other political figures."

Is it Jan. 20th yet?