TERRORIST GHOST ATTACK IS IMMINENT : WE ARE NOT SAFE

SAFETY ADVISORY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : David Petraeus, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Last week, our Nation marked a significant milestone with the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We can be grateful that we escaped the event without incident. Thanks to the tireless efforts of State and Federal law enforcement, America foiled any attempt to mar the memorial ceremony with violence.

As a Nation, we have come closer this year to defeating terror than at any time since 9/11. We have killed Osama bin Laden. We have al-Qaeda on the run. And we have created a culture of security that keeps Americans safe from terror.

Despite these encouraging developments, we cannot let our guard down. While the Central Intelligence Agency understands that Americans simply want to live without fear, we cannot yet afford to quell the alarm.

In fact, we regret to inform the public that al-Qaeda has unleashed a frightening new weapon: Ghosts.

Generally, we here at the Central Intelligence Agency do not speak directly to the American people. Circumstances, however, mandate that we reveal critical new information that impacts all Americans. Public safety is acutely in danger, and we must advise appropriate measures to cope with the risk.

Today's threat is elusive. It does not involve bombs, guns or gas. It does not involve suicide attackers. It does not even involve living human beings. No, it involves something much more frightening: The vengeful spirits of slain al-Qaeda leaders returned from the grave.

This is not a hoax. Our agents have credible, reliable and confirmed reports that al-Qaeda intends to make supernatural war against New York City, especially the Ground Zero site. According to top agents, it appears that the angry ghosts of al-Qaeda leaders are currently on their way from the spirit world to wreak havoc on Lower Manhattan. Agents also inform us that these spirits have recruited ghouls, goblins, wraiths, specters, poltergeists and even zombies to spread fear in New York.

Understandably, we are taking these threats extremely seriously. Supernatural warfare cannot be taken lightly. We have already received initial reports that al-Qaeda ghosts are both extremely scary and difficult to pinpoint. And most disturbingly, intelligence indicates that conventional weaponry is useless against ghosts. Bullets, bombs and airstrikes simply cannot harm these terrifying spirits. After all, ghosts are already dead: Killing them again is no easy matter.

It is not entirely clear how al-Qaeda ghosts will operate. Some experts believe that terror ghosts can manipulate electronics. This poses a devastating threat to the national economy. Ghosts could ostensibly haunt iPads, iPhones, NASDAQ and the internet. Communication and commerce would break down, imperiling a fragile economic recovery.

Just imagine what would happen if an angry al-Qaeda spirit corrupted the Nation's computers? Web browsing, timekeeping, online bill paying, social networking and E-Harmony would collapse. Chaos would follow. It is a horrifying thought.

Worse, intelligence also indicates that ghosts can change cable channels without warning, take over flight controls, scare away workers and terrify small children. Finally, ghosts represent a very real danger to seniors and persons with cardiac difficulty: Seeing a ghost can easily cause heart failure.

In short, we face a serious crisis.

But it is essential to maintain calm. While we acknowledge that al-Qaeda ghosts are certainly scary, we are already taking action against them. In our battles with al-Qaeda, we have learned how to cope with terror. We know how to foil attacks, and supernatural attacks are no different. Put simply, we can defeat anything al-Qaeda throws at us, including ghosts.

Together with military and law enforcement authorities, the CIA is hard at work securing Lower Manhattan against the expected spectral onslaught. Thanks to improved interrogation methods, we have confirmed that the ghosts of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Mustafa al-Yazid intend to float into the area around Ground Zero within the next 48 hours. We will be ready for them.

Authorities will lock down Lower Manhattan to quarantine the ghosts as soon as they land. Regrettably, these measures will entail some inconvenience for New Yorkers. All citizens will be subject to search and detainment to verify that they have not been haunted by al-Qaeda. And all citizens may be required to surrender their personal property--including their clothing and underwear--for inspection to determine whether a spirit has not hidden within it. After all, we are talking about ghosts. They can easily hide in backpacks, socks, panties, boxer shorts, water bottles and even cell phones.

While we appreciate citizens' concerns for their liberty, dignity and privacy in these matters, we reiterate that security against terrorist ghosts requires strong action. Comprehensive security is the only way to successfully defeat ghosts.

We recognize that New Yorkers simply want to get back to normal after 10 years of terror. But we cannot afford to give up now. We face perhaps the most frightening battle we have yet faced in the War on Terror. We are all afraid of ghosts; but al-Qaeda ghosts are especially bad. Worse, this is no ghost story. This is a specific, credible and confirmed threat.

Still, Americans do not back down. We can defeat terrorist ghosts just as well as living terrorists. We all must refuse to give in to fear. Go to work. Go on vacation. Go to a movie. Go buy a car. Go buy a home. Go about your business as you would any other day. If a ghoul accosts you, tell him you're an American and you are not afraid. Sure, he might haunt you or even steal your handbag, but that is no reason to bend to terror.

We here at the CIA will do our part to keep the public informed as we obtain new reports. Until that time, we advise full cooperation with law enforcement. If you are detained, remember that your sacrifice is absolutely necessary to prevent al-Qaeda from haunting America. You will be released as soon as competent authorities determine that an al-Qaeda ghost has not hidden somewhere in your clothing or on your body.

In this age of heightened security concerns, we all must be prepared to make the occasional sacrifice. If we do not, the ghosts win.

"I AIN'T APOLOGIZIN' FOR SHIT" : TIGER WOODS' ALTERNATE REMARKS

A REASON, COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND FREE BEER EXCLUSIVE REPORT

Last Friday, disgraced PGA Golf Champion Tiger Woods made big news when he made his first public appearance since allegations arose last fall that he perennially cheated on his wife. In a prepared statement, he publicly acknowledged that he "cheated," "acted irresponsibly" and "was unfaithful" by engaging in serial extramarital relations with over ten women while married to his wife, Elin Nordegren. He showered apologies on everyone from his "business partners" to his wife, children, mother, friends, their friends, fellow golfers, the game of golf and even Buddhism.

Despite Mr. Woods' technical contrition, however, many viewers felt that he did not put his heart into the performance. Many commentators claimed that he was "wooden" and "robotic" while reading his statement. They claimed that he must have been coached to deliver his remarks in order to smooth over any future employment problems, as well as to maintain favorable commercial relationships with endorsers. In fact, many commentators said that they did not believe anything Mr. Woods said. Rather, they contended that he just was "saying what he had to say" in order to remain professionally viable.

Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer worked all weekend to determine Mr. Woods' true sentiments. Thanks to our tireless efforts--as well as to some fortunate conversations with lawyers and publicists close to Mr. Woods--our agents discovered that Mr. Woods prepared his own statement weeks before his presentation last week. Through some luck and journalistic ingenuity, our agents actually found a copy of Mr. Woods' original remarks. Our agents learned that Mr. Woods' lawyers and publicists urged him never to deliver these remarks. According to our sources, Mr. Woods' took their advice and asked a team of trusted lawyers and publicists to draft his statement. Ultimately, Mr. Woods delivered that version last week.

But here at Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer, we believe that men have a right to speak their minds. We also believe that honesty is central to American discourse, especially discourse involving public figures like Mr. Woods. No matter what our opponents say, we think that America deserves to hear what Mr. Woods actually thinks about the scandal that has transfixed the Nation for almost three months. While we sympathize with Mr. Woods' contention that his behavior is essentially "private," the news story is not. For better or worse, Mr. Woods' serial philandering has entered the lexicon of American civilization: We all know about it. And we want to know more.

For those reasons, today we are pleased to present Tiger Woods' Alternate Remarks:

February 19, 2010

Good morning, motherfuckers,

You know something? I got just about one thing to say to everybody seated here today and all a y'all sitting at home watching me on TV: "Fuck all a y'all. I ain't apologizin' for shit."

Do you motherfuckers know what you've done to my life? Look at my hair! Holy shit, man, I'm going bald over this. Do you know how much you've embarrassed me in front of my wife? Don't you have any respect for a man who's just trying to get an honest nut up in here? Shit, it's not like I'm the only player out there trying to get a little bit on the side. In fact, if a white man cheated on his wife, y'all probably wouldn't even say anything about it. But as soon as a successful black man stands up and wants to get a little extra pootie, you step up and try to lynch me.

Y'all are giving me a hard time because I'm black.

Well, fuck y'all. I'm pissed.

I didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what any man would do in my situation. In fact, y'all wish you could be like me. Y'all wish you could have my money, cash and hoes. Yeah, I'm a smooth-talking, smooth-walking, good-looking, money-having player. I get millions for driving golf balls down the fairway. I get my picture taken with a Tag Heuer watch on. Then I go out to the VIP champagne room and sink a few mo-fuckin' putts with some smokin' hot honies. I ride around in Bentleys and I live in a palace. My wife is a Norwegian model, BI-ATCH! What the fuck you thought?

And you say you don't like me. You say: "He unfaithful." Sheee-yit, I know every last one of you men out there wants to be doing exactly what I've been doing. And don't you deny it, you hypocritical motherfuckers.

Let me just say one thing to you right here: "A player got to play. Don't hate the player; hate the game." Stop hating me because I play better than you. If you don't like the game, don't play. But don't hate me just because I'm the big bad mack daddio who gets all the hoes.

No, no, no. You got it all backwards. All a y'all jealous motherfuckers are wrong, not me. I mean, leave my wife and kids out of this. This ain't none of your business. This is between me and my family. Stick your cameras somewhere else. So what I banged some big-booty hoes in the club. So what I brought a couple freaks to the house while my wife was away. So what if we busted out the ice cubes, whips and whipped cream. What the fuck does that have to do with y'all? That's my motherfuckin' business! Stay out of it! Leave a brother alone!

And so what I if was unfaithful? You try being faithful when you're a young, good-looking black man and ten scorching hot women start wagging their titties in your face. You just try it. You sit up there talking about "responsibility," "honor" "integrity" and "decency." That shit don't matter much when fifteen or twenty hoes be circling round the long dong. Shit yeah, biatch, my shit is strong. Say whatever y'all want about it. You wouldn't be acting all high and mighty if hot-ass porn stars treated you the way they treat me. See what I'm saying? Y'all are just jealous.

And that's another thing I want to bring up: Why y'all trying to pin all the blame on me for being unfaithful? You think I was the only one doing wrong here? What about the hoes who got butt-booty nekid when I was just trying to mind my business? I didn't ask 'em to sit on my face: They just did it. Was I supposed to say: "I'm sorry, my dear, but my marriage relation compels me to ask you to remove your vagina from my lips"? What about my cold-hearted wife who treated me like shit at home? Sometimes she don't wanna fuck for months on end, then she asks me to do motherfucking chores around the house. Fuck that.

I'm just a man. You put me in some tight situations and I'm gonna do some freaky things. That's just how we roll. So basically what I'm saying is this: I'm not the only one to blame here. I'm just a man.

So back the fuck off and leave me alone. I don't need no help. I don't need no "sex addiction therapy." Player, what? Sex addiction? Sex ain't no addiction; that shit be natural. Just because I bagged some nice-looking ass don't mean I got a "problem." Shit, most brothers would say I did good. What the fuck is with all a y'all? As soon as you get good at fucking that means you gotta check into the hospital for "sex addiction? " Say what?

This is what I've been saying all along: Y'all just can't cut a successful brother a break. Y'all wish you could be doing what I've been doing, but because you can't, you say: "Tiger gotta get help."

I'm going to say this one time and one time only: "I don't need no motherfucking help." I'm fine. I'm doin' exactly what a man is supposed to do when he's rich, famous and good-looking. I'm supposed to get a reward for all my success, right? I'm supposed to enjoy my life, aren't I? Apparently not, you fuckers. Nope, y'all want me to sit at home, take Elin's shit and watch TV on Saturday night. Well let me tell you something: That's not what players do. And I'm a player. I'ma play.

Not only that, how is "therapy" supposed to stop me from fucking? What are we supposed to talk about up in there? Talk about finger-painting? Crayons? What I brought for lunch? What am I, nine fucking years old? Therapy, what? Pleeeeze. Y'all just can't stand the idea that a black man be getting everything in life you wish you had, so you say he's "sick" and throw him in the hospital.

I got something to say to my business partners. I know y'all are important, so I'm gonna say something to you right about now. Don't cut me loose. I got nothing but love for ya, baby. And people who buy shit I endorse are still gonna buy it. Hey, people love a player. People love a mack. Don't you know that? Look at P. Diddy: He sells every last thing he touches. Let's face it: Quiet guys who wear golf sweaters aren't usually very exciting. But when they see me wearing a golf sweater, they'll say: "Oh, shit, is that Tiger in that three-button cardigan? I got to get me one of them. Then I'll get me all the hoes!"

Think about it. I'm marketing gold. Most people think golf is fuckin boring as hell. But with me, I spice it up and turn it into a crunk party.

So that's about it. I ain't sorry for anything I've done. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm still the best motherfucking golfer alive; believe that. Y'all can try to lynch me all you want. Ain't gonna stop this player. I'm gonna keep sinking putts on and off the course. Watch me.

And in the meantime, stay the fuck away from me and my wife. This ain't none a y'all god damn business.

Thank you. And kiss my black Thai ass, you racist player-hating bastards.

UNDERPANTS ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE SEARCHED, NO MATTER THE COST

A CRITICAL MESSAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

By : Mr. B. Kyle Hosenfeld, Ph.D., Acting Commissioner for Airport Security, Department of Homeland Security (appointed by President George W. Bush, 2005-present); Former Chief Financial Advisor, Traxxx Garment Manufacturing Company, Inc., Toledo, Ohio (1990-2005); Lingerie Expert (since childhood); Ladies Hosiery Hobbyist (1976-present).

Terror does not take a Holiday. Terror does not distinguish between the old year and the new year. For terrorists, every day is another opportunity to kill Americans and disrupt American business. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, we know that.

That is why we never rest. We are committed to protecting the American people from Muslim fanatics, as well as any other fanatics who attempt to depress the stock market through violence. This holiday season, we saw that terrorists remain determined to strike America. Almost a decade after 9/11, a Nigerian Muslim named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up on a packed airliner above Detroit. To accomplish his dastardly plan, he packed explosives into his underwear. Thankfully, they did not detonate; he succeeded only in setting his own pants on fire. The New York Post dubbed him "The Crotch Bomber." The Daily News called him "Fruit of the Loon."

We concur. But despite Abudulmutallab's failure, we understand that the American public remains concerned about terror. For that reason, we have instituted new airport security measures to assuage anxieties concerning hosiery-borne weapons of mass destruction. We believe that we can stop terror attacks before they happen. And that means searching every piece of underwear in the airports--and that means all of it, right down to the buttocks.

Searching underwear is the only way to verify whether an airline passenger is really a terrorist. In the past, we have seen that various garments can carry weapons. Learning from the past, we here at the Department instituted a new airport security principle: Target the offending garment. When Richard Reid tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe in 2001, we decided that all shoes are dangerous and must be searched. In the years since, Americans learned that they had to take off their shoes before boarding an airplane.

We should apply the same rule in this case. Here, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an explosive in his underwear. The "offending garment," then, is underwear. Just as we required all Americans to take off their shoes at airports because Richard Reid transformed shoes into an "offending garment" in 2001, so too must we require Americans to take off their underwear today. It is the only way to ensure maximum safety for all.

We do not believe that Americans will find it inconvenient to remove their underwear prior to boarding aircraft. In 2001, Americans understood that Richard Reid nearly blew up a plane with a shoe-bomb, so they willingly suffered some inconvenience by removing their own shoes in the years that followed. In 2010, Americans understand that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane with an underwear-bomb, so they will not mind suffering some inconvenience by removing their underwear, too. When safety is at stake, Americans do their part. Underwear is no different than a shoe. When removing a garment is necessary to protect America from Islamic terror, we are confident that Americans will gladly--and publicly--take everything off.

We recognize that civil liberties advocates will object to our new underwear search protocol as excessive. They will say that requiring all Americans to remove their underwear will encroach upon their dignity. They will say that it will invade their privacy. They will even say that it will embarrass children and women, especially overweight ones.

We disagree with these contentions. For one, we point out that privacy must yield to national security concerns. We all like privacy. But when it comes to preventing terror, we all must be prepared to bare all for safety. If we are a little embarrassed about our bodies, we must learn to overcome our shyness, whip off our underwear and put it on the automated x-ray conveyor belt. Second, the United States Constitution does not guarantee "dignity." Even if stripping naked in public were somehow "undignified," we reject the assertion that an official, Federally-mandated underwear search violates "dignity." If nudity occurs pursuant to law, it is not undignified. More to the point, we are certain that every American would rather sacrifice their dignity by removing their underwear in front of leering, apathetic Transportation Safety Agents than be blown up in midair. Viewed in that light, we see absolutely no merit to the claim that mandatory underwear searches violate "privacy" or "dignity."

Mandatory underwear searches will do more than merely stop terror. They will also yield beneficial secondary effects. For example, many drug traffickers elude detection by packing narcotics in their underpants. By requiring everyone to remove their underwear, we would eliminate that subterfuge for good. Furthermore, mandatory underwear removal will enable Federal agents to identify dangerous, ugly, unpleasant and malodorous genitalia. Under applicable Federal statutes, such genitalia are "weapons of mass destruction" that subject the possessor to felony terrorism charges. Until now, it has been difficult to locate dangerous genitalia because they are generally camouflaged under trousers, skirts, underpants and stockings. But thanks to the new underwear removal procedures, we will be able to effectively enforce the law against recalcitrant genital terrorists.

In sum, we here at the Department are committed to protecting Americans, no matter the cost. We believe it is logical, consistent, effective and reasonable to require all airport travelers to remove their underwear prior to boarding any flight originating on American soil. Contrary to all objections, this is not a drastic step. It is no different than the regulation requiring Americans to remove their shoes. By orienting airport security scrutiny around the "offending garment" principle, we achieve theoretical and logical consistency for our enforcement efforts. Not only that, we also increase safety, deter terror and reduce genitalia-related crime in interstate commerce. We achieve all these salutary goals merely by requiring Americans to take off their underwear at security checkpoints. Balancing the burdens against the benefits in this case, we must conclude that we have found a winning procedure.

In a final step, we have also determined that all travelers with the word "Abdul" anywhere in their names must be forbidden from air travel. That includes American Idol judge and pop singer Paula Abdul, as well as avowed terrorists such as Abdul Sheikh Mohammed. Although liberal activists and Middle Eastern scholars will doubtlessly claim that this measure sweeps too broadly, we respond that we have conclusive evidence that people with the name "Abdul" stand a much higher chance to commit terror than people named Swanson, Harrison or Clark. When it comes to security, we must consider probabilities. And in this case, we are simply playing the numbers: Abduls are more dangerous than Clarks.

It is safe to fly in America. Do not let terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab discourage you from taking a trip. Despite his nefarious attempt to kill Americans with explosive underwear, we have emerged from this crisis safer than ever before. We have learned that both shoes and underwear are mortally dangerous. To that extent, we have tailored our security protocols to ensure that neither shoe nor slip poses a threat to law-abiding Americans. From this day forward, we promise to search every last undergarment that passes through any airport in the United States.

Terrorists beware: We will search your underwear.

And behold America's resolve: We are not afraid to take off all our clothes, even for a Podunk flight from Tuscaloosa to Memphis. Even if we weigh 500 pounds, we are unafraid. We will take it all off.

When in doubt, just remember our new slogan:

Because security begins with safe underwear®.

MUST WE ALWAYS BE LINKED IN?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I don't like telephones. If I'm not expecting a call, I can't stand it when the phone rings. Basically, I don't like interruptions. I like focusing on things. I like dedicating my energy fully to a project and getting it done as well as I can. When some fool calls me about new cable service or a municipal election, it breaks my concentration. I don't like small talk, either. I don't like reporting what "I've been doing lately," "how things are going with me," "what I'm doing this weekend" or "how the job search is turning out." I would just rather read and write in peace.

Telephones used to terrorize me in law practice. My bosses expected me to be on the phone all the time: Call the client; call opposing counsel; call me; call your colleague; call the court; call the expert; call the printing service. All meaningless, vacuous, unstimulating calls. Either that or confrontations over the phone: "Give us the documents...no. Get this done now...no. I'm going to sanction you for this...go ahead; see if I care." Nasty, nasty shit.

Telephones allow people to attend to business without "actually being there." In many ways, this is advantageous. But when people try to do too much every day, they abuse the telephone. It gets ridiculous when you make and take 1000 calls a day trying to get everything accomplished from afar. I mean, how much can you really do over a phone line? Good old-fashioned face-to-face contact is a gravely underestimated commodity these days. I think excessive telephone use cheapens human exchange. And telephones cause unreal stress when abused. You can run away from a person. But you can't run from a person with a phone. In a word, telephones can take away your peace if you let them.

And I'm just talking about regular land lines. Cell phones made matters worse. As hard as it is to field phone calls from behind a desk, in the old days at least you could go home and escape the dreaded rings. Once you left the office, the phone could ring all it wanted; you couldn't hear it. As recently as the early 1990s, people had more peace in their lives because they didn't carry their phones with them everywhere they went. Now, everyone and their brother has a cell phone. You can't escape your phone now, even if you want to. Even you leave your house for a moment to buy a gallon of milk, someone can ring your cell phone. You are always on call. You must answer. How can you experience peace if you're worried about who might call you every minute?

American society is obsessed with contact. People don't want to be isolated from others even for an instant. They need to know what others are doing all the time. They need to reach them at any moment. While this might yield some "real-time" benefits, I argue that our society's obsession with constant communicative contact makes it more difficult to find peace than it was only 20 years ago. Some call me an "old soul" because I shut myself in a room for several hours every morning and pull the phone line out of the wall. But I just want some peace. I like the idea that I have time to myself each day when no one can reach me, even in an emergency. If something horrible happens, I'll find out about it when I'm ready. Yet in most cases, if someone calls me, it won't be an emergency. It will be a sales call or a pollster. Screw them. I don't want to hear it. Thank God for caller ID.

I understand that I am a mighty rare bird. I have always relished outdated communicative means. I write handwritten notes. I like meeting people in person. I like face-to-face conversations. I embrace technology to the extent that it makes my daily routine easier. But I do not dive headlong into real-time contact with everyone all the time. I joined Facebook mainly as a free forum for my writing and to learn about old friends. I've had a cell phone since 2000 because sometimes I need to let people know where I am. But I don't update my status every 20 seconds, nor do I make random calls to everyone in my contacts folder. No, I want peace.

I just can't understand why so many people want to know "what's going on with everyone" all the time. For example, I cannot ride the elevator in my apartment building without seeing some well-dressed woman on a mobile device furiously typing something. Strangely, it's always a woman, and always white. I see them on the weekends, early in the morning, at night, in the evening, you name it. What are they writing about? Why? To whom? It can't just be about work: You don't write work emails at 11 PM on Saturday, do you? I can't figure it out, but that's because I'm Balthazar Oesterhoudt, an antiquated man who likes reading, peace and quiet. Can someone tell me what these women are scribbling? What the hell is so important? Can't it wait until they get where they're going? Why couldn't they write the message before leaving the apartment? Why try to do four things at once? These questions perplex me; and they make me question my place in this linked-in society: Do I even belong in this century?

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote a polemic called "Uncontemporary Observations." He dared to criticize beliefs and trends that most people in his day simply assumed to be valid. I continue that tradition. I do not like this linked-in society and I find it quite disturbing. I like privacy. More and more, our society willingly cedes its privacy in order to "let everyone else know what's going on with us all the time." Sadly, even professional success now depends on "how many people you know" and "how well you communicate with lots people in your 'network.'" That, in turn, engendered an entirely new--and distinctly American--concept in the English language: "NETWORKING."

I don't "network." I maintain human relationships with as many people as I can. I do not cultivate relationships that I know won't go anywhere. And I certainly do not calculate relationships in order to win petty career advancement. I don't like using people for selfish ends. Yet this is precisely what "networking" demands. I am not "successful" in the linked-in world because I do not like exploiting others for my own gain. I actually take pride in that. If I fail because I do not properly "network," I consider that a compliment.

But again, I am a mighty rare bird. I take my time when I speak, read and write. I don't stop reading something because it's over a sentence long. I relish life as it comes; I don't try to manipulate it according to a plan or expectation.

People who "network" don't have time for that. Every conversation must yield a tangible benefit; every contact must have a "purpose" that leads closer to a "goal." If you write something, it had better be short because these folks are in a hurry. There is never enough time for them. And that's why there is no peace in the linked-in society. You have peace when you have enough time each day to meaningfully pursue your own heart. If finding peace means turning off your cell phone for a few hours, I say do it.

Speak when you want to, not because you must. That will bring you some peace. Unplug yourself for a while. It is quite rewarding. Who knows: You might actually feel human again.

WE NEED DNA TESTING FOR ALL CRIMES NOW

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. Carl J. See, Ph.D. (Occupational Psychiatry), M.D. (Sports Medicine); Chairman, The Safe Children Society; Deputy Fellow, The Institute for Practical Biological Application, Ltd.

Human genes reveal us. Modern medical science can now pinpoint genetic codes that define our personalities, propensities, proclivities, habits and inclinations. When genetic coding first arose as a scientific discipline, scientists could only identify DNA strands for simple attributes, such as hair color, eye color and shoe size. Now, researchers at several major institutes—including The Institute for Practical Biological Application, Ltd.—have discovered that DNA can predict much more subtle behavioral characteristics. Researchers at the institute recently found, for example, that a convicted murderer in Florida had a special gene. Comparing that gene to other murderers' genes, the researchers discovered that they all shared an identical, unique DNA code. Intrigued, the researchers analyzed gene codes from convicts who committed property crimes. They, too, had a unique DNA combination. Acting on these discoveries, our scientists declared that they had discovered “criminal genes” that define whether a citizen has committed—or will commit—crimes.

These discoveries should both impress and sober us. In brief, we have made a startling breakthrough with immense practical application. With continued research, our team will pinpoint genetic codes for all crimes, from major felonies to the pettiest misdemeanors. When we complete our work, we will have the power to exactly know whether our neighbors are potential killers, bandits, thieves, child neglecters, tax evaders or check forgers. Our research can even pinpoint whether a person will urinate in public, slap a police officer or park in a tow-away zone. Our society has a right to know—and to punish—everyone who violates the criminal law, no matter how trifling the offense. The Institute’s DNA research will make it possible to know precisely who will violate the law, as well as those who have already violated it. Our researchers have even discovered a subtle RNA strand change that occurs when a potential criminal becomes an actual criminal. If an observer sees this RNA strand change, it certifiably determines that the subject actually committed a crime. In short, science will both control potential crime and investigate crime that has already occurred. No longer will authorities worry about “catching the wrong man.” Now, DNA will tell the whole story, trial or no trial.

Despite these great advances, we must make legal and social changes to fully prepare our society for the benefits they will bring. First, we must obtain DNA samples from every living citizen in the United States. This is the only way we can assemble a reliable DNA database from which to make predictions and judgments concerning every citizen’s potential and actual criminality. With children, this will be easy. We can lobby Congress and State legislatures to pass laws that require all newborns to submit DNA samples at birth. With adults, we face a somewhat more difficult road. But we believe that all citizens have a right to know who is a criminal. To that extent, we believe that adults will voluntarily surrender DNA samples to law enforcement scientists. We also believe that most Americans will support legislation forcing unwilling adults to deliver DNA samples to responsible authorities. While we understand that some “privacy advocates” may disagree with this course, we note that DNA sampling is no different from fingerprinting or taking blood samples. The Supreme Court has held in several cases that such “biological screening” does not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). From a legal standpoint, there is nothing intrusive about taking a DNA sample. True, DNA samples reveal a person’s complete biological roadmap—including his tastes, hobbies, inclinations and future behavior—but that is not relevant as a legal matter.

Second, we must establish new law enforcement departments to analyze every citizen’s DNA code. Once the Institute assembles the final lexicon matching particular DNA strands with particular crimes, these new departments must assign every citizen’s DNA file a list of potential crimes. Following this work, the departments must determine whether there have been telltale RNA strand changes each file’s criminal DNA chains. If so, that means the citizen has actually committed a crime. This will require the department to alert enforcement authorities to track down and arrest the criminal. For all other individuals with criminal DNA chains, the department must refer the file to police authorities for monitoring and oversight. Additionally, the department must make its discoveries public. The public has a right to know who has criminal DNA. To that extent, law enforcement authorities must publish the names, addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of all individuals with criminal DNA. These publications must also list the crimes that each named subject will potentially commit. These measures will not only help prevent crime. They will also aid employers in screening out dangerous and unwelcome potential employees.

Criminal law enforcement is everyone’s responsibility. Although police forces and courts administer the criminal law, every citizen plays a role. Citizens created the criminal law by electing representatives to permanently enshrine their values. In that sense, every citizen has an interest in tracking down and punishing those who break their rules. That is why criminal cases speak for “The People” rather than individual parties. Moreover, crime affects us all. Crime impacts commerce, lowers wages and makes people afraid to go to work. When commerce suffers, all citizens suffer. Effectively investigating, tracking and punishing crime protects commerce. And when commerce functions properly, everyone can go to work and enjoy their lives without fear. DNA screening will ensure this result. All citizens just want to work and enjoy their lives. They want lawbreakers to suffer if they do not get with the program. To that extent, the Institute’s DNA discoveries will enable everyday citizens to live better lives.

DNA testing is not an entirely new idea. For several years now, authorities have used DNA evidence to link defendants to crimes involving bodily fluids, hair or skin particles. But now we can do so much more than link defendants to crimes. Today, DNA reveals not only who committed a crime, but also who will commit a crime. It also does far more than merely identify defendants. It provides a complete readout concerning a person’s character and personality. We believe that effective crime control depends not only on good identification, but also on properly understanding people’s character. As mentioned, law enforcement is everyone’s responsibility. Criminals do not belong among law-abiding people. To that extent, decent people must know who has bad character before they cause harm. When our reforms come into force, law-abiding citizens will know whether their neighbor ever forged a check, parked improperly, abused a child, committed a lewd act, lied under oath, pickpocketed, beat a dog or stole welfare benefits. They will even allow law-abiding citizens to “watch out” for people with DNA likely to lead to public urination, vandalism, domestic violence, lying on employment applications or resumes, unruly behavior, criminal tardiness, petty theft, trespassing or downloading child pornography. DNA does not lie. Good citizens deserve to know who the bad citizens are. For the first time in history, criminals will not be able to hide. Both good citizens and law enforcement officials will know exactly who and where they are at all times, even before they commit offenses.

In view of these benefits, it is remarkable that “civil liberties advocates” raise objections to the Institute’s work. According to these critics, there is something “sacred” about “privacy.” They say that a person’s personality and spiritual characteristics are internal matters that no one has a right to know. They also say that government has no right to make assumptions about whether a person is a “potential criminal,” and the Institute’s research will eviscerate the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

We strongly disagree with these objections for several reasons. First, the Institute’s DNA research does not make “assumptions” about potential criminality. It establishes scientific fact. When a person has a gene for public urination, he will commit the offense as a genetic matter. There is no “assumption.” An assumption is a belief in facts without personal knowledge. The Institute’s research does not assume; it establishes fact. Through scientific reasoning, observation and logical conclusion, it pinpointed genes that invariably lead to criminal behavior. This may dishearten criminals, but a fact is a fact. Criminals are criminals because their DNA proves it. Unlike the law, there is no disputing science.

Second, we must point out that advances in science necessarily force retreat from outdated social customs. While our Constitution may allow for fair trials and “presume innocence” for all criminal defendants, those guarantees arose at a time when science did not provide the means to precisely know who committed crimes. To that extent, the “presumption of innocence” is a superstition from an earlier, unenlightened age. Now, it would be asinine to presume a person innocent whose DNA conclusively proves to be a criminal. If the subtle, telltale RNA strand shift is present in a suspect, there is no doubt about his guilt. Although this result may infuriate civil libertarians, it is the necessary consequence of scientific advancement. We no longer need “trials.” Either the suspect is a criminal by DNA or he is not. In that regard, the guilty will no longer go free by exploiting foibles in human sense and emotion, and the innocent will not have to fear wrongful conviction. All law enforcement will begin and end at birth—at the moment the authorities obtain a citizen’s DNA sample. After that, it is merely a question of matching the DNA code to the person’s potential crime list.

We are not willing to allow “privacy” to jeopardize our interest in law enforcement. For too long, “privacy” has imposed a cripplingly high cost on society. “Privacy” has freed drug dealers, pimps, hoodlums and mass murderers because the law could not assemble the empirical evidence it needed to convict them. Society does not approve these results. Rather, society wants to see its laws enforced, not flouted. We are glad that science now offers a way to solve the age-old “privacy” dilemma. For the first time in history, we can now live in a completely crimeless society. Through modern genetic science, we will all know who the “bad people” are; and we will all know who “did it” if there is ever a doubt. We believe that great benefit outweighs any burden we shoulder by compromising “privacy.” The public has a right to know what lies in everyone’s DNA. We have a duty to protect our children. DNA testing will tell us who is a potential car thief, income tax faker or prescription drug peddler. This knowledge will keep us all safe from bad people. Science truly can lead to a better society, even if it forces us to abandon comfortable, outmoded customs like privacy. In short, we want security and knowledge, not insecurity and ignorance.

We have a great opportunity to decisively root out crime. Let us ensure that science and knowledge advance, no matter what ancient traditions say about it. Let us begin mandatory DNA screening for all crimes now. Our children depend on it. You want them to grow up in a safe society, don’t you? Of course you do.

DEMOCRATS CANNOT HANDLE HOMELAND SECURITY : ONLY REPUBLICANS KNOW HOW TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE

By : Mr. Mitch McConnell, United States Senator (R-KY); Senate Minority Leader; Obama Opponent; Homeland Security Expert; Member, Agriculture Committee.

THE MINORITY VOICE

President Barack Hussein Obama has led this country for 100 torturous days. During that time, the President has made war on the American people by releasing brutal terrorists from our military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also eased restrictions on immigration, flooding our land with Spanish-speaking beggars, criminals and litterbugs. Backed by a majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has dismantled the wall his predecessor erected to defend this country from terror and miscreants, both foreign and domestic. Worse, he has put an emphasis on “fair process for all” and a “commitment to constitutional liberty” over security for American women and children. He has staffed the Homeland Security Department with liberal lawyers and law professors, some of whom are practicing Arab-loving homosexuals. He has committed to quitting the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In short, Obama is a national disgrace; Democrats do not know anything about Homeland Security. As Republicans, we have a duty to protect America. And to protect America during the Obama era, we must strongly oppose anything he does, says or thinks. It is the only way to protect America’s children from terror attacks.

Our Founding Fathers knew that an elected democratic majority could be just as tyrannical as an unelected King. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers inherent in “small majorities.” They knew that a “small majority” could trample on very significant minority interests. For that reason, they provided such measures as the veto override mechanism, the constitutional amendment procedure and the bicameral legislature. They also embodied their commitment to minority rights through parliamentary procedures such as the filibuster, which allows the minority to stop small majorities from voting on key issues. Today, Republicans have a duty to invoke these procedures against Obama and his socialist-terrorist allies. When it comes to national security, Democrats prefer to shake hands with terrorist scum rather than detain, waterboard and kill them. When Republicans see turbans, we shoot; we don’t ask questions. This is the approach we need to defend America. It makes no sense to talk to Arabs; there is no such thing as “friendly relations” with terrorists. George W. Bush understood that.

In 2001, George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Department in order to protect this Nation from all enemies. In the beginning, Mr. Tom Ridge led the bureau. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge knew that old-fashioned ideas like due process, liberty, privacy, access to counsel, the right to remain silent and fair trials would not defeat terror in the 21st Century. For that reason, the Department suspended civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. That was the right decision; after 9/11 America enjoyed seven years without terror. We caught many, many bad guys, although national security protocols forbid me from disclosing their names or how many we caught. We foiled many plots, although I cannot say what they were or how many. Despite all the criticism, Mr. Bush proved that his approach to Homeland Security was the right one.

Now the Democrats control the Homeland Security Department. This is the ultimate irony. During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats opposed everything the Department did. They said it trampled on civil liberties and increased Executive power. They said it harassed law-abiding citizens and perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. They said the Department did nothing to protect America; rather, they said it simply increased the President’s power to detain citizens without grounding in law. Of course, these Democrats fail to see that the Department did stop terror. The Department did protect America. The Department seized millions of gallons of contraband shampoo at airport security lines. It made tens of millions of Americans and foreigners remove their shoes and flip-flops. It inconvenienced millions of travelers who had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda. It forced millions of Americans to take off their clothing and submit to searches without probable cause. It even listened in on millions of innocent phone conversations without court authorization, in many cases uncovering other, minor crimes in the process. Those measures doubtlessly foiled a would-be bomber. In any event, they allowed authorities to track down marijuana sellers and petty thieves. Most importantly, they sent a clear message: America takes security seriously. If America is willing to strip-search normal-looking white citizens for no reason, then certainly an Arab would know that he could not move about freely without attracting attention. Homeland Security reduced America’s privacy; and that was a good thing. If it came between safety and privacy, we would take safety every time. The 9/11 plotters conspired in private. Can I be any clearer on my point that privacy is dangerous? Thanks to the Department’s disrespect for both privacy and the Constitution, we lived in a safe society.

Not anymore. Democrats in the Homeland Security Department have already begun easing restrictions established under President Bush. Rather than viewing every American as a potential terrorist, Democrats assume that all Americans are good and peaceful. They no longer eavesdrop on random phone conversations. They allow Americans to travel with hair gel, personal lubricants, shoe polish, water bottles, shampoo and conditioner. They even smile and say: “Welcome to O’Hare International Airport!” to brown people wearing Muslim headdress, veils and Mohammedan robes. Rather than suspecting Arabs, they apologize for them and send them on their way without a boarding pass. They treat everyone with “decency and respect for constitutional liberty.” They say they want to “restore faith in the Constitution” after President Bush’s “abuses.”

This is no way to run a government. A President has one overriding duty: To protect the American people at all costs. President Obama and his Homeland Security Department mock that duty. Now, they view Americans with compassion and respect, not suspicion and rancor. They follow constitutional procedures and the Bill of Rights; they no longer hold terror suspects without cause or counsel. These idiots! We do not protect America by giving everyone liberty. We protect America by imprisoning the bad guys. Although we Republicans believe in the Constitution, we regard it the way it should be regarded: As optional advice. It would be really nice if we could give everyone habeas corpus and obtain warrants before searching them. But we would leave this country open to attack if we did. If we followed the Constitution—as President Obama suggests—our entire government would break down. Worse, terrorists, hoodlums and immigrants would overwhelm our borders, disturbing business and commerce. If torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping protect this country from Muslims, we say: “Give us torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping.” Good citizens have nothing to hide. In the 21st Century, we face many dangers. We believe that liberty is for criminals and terrorists. In that light, we believe that Mr. Obama and his soft-hearted Homeland Security Department are leading us down the path to ruin.

Democrats could not protect their own mothers, let alone the United States of America. They are a bunch of weak-willed, overintellectual cowards who would rather give an insane beggar welfare than tell him to get a job, get moving and get over it. They cannot even protect America from flu-infected pigs in Ohio and New York, let alone from terrorists in Pakistan. Some lesbian in the Homeland Security Department said yesterday: “We must accord proper respect for the dignity of the livestock before rushing to judgment about their health status.” This is Democratic rule for you: They would rather respect a hog’s rights than protect America from disease. Well, we are glad to provide the minority voice about security. When Republicans see a diseased hog, they do not worry about its “health status” or “dignity.” They kill it and bury it faster than you can say: “Don Rumsfeld.” The same goes for terrorists. When we see a terrorist, we do not worry about constitutional liberty or “proper interrogation procedures.” We lock the towelhead up, waterboard him and throw away the key. If some lesbian ACLU lawyer makes a fuss about it, we might let an Army Colonel look into his case. But if not, it’s Game Over for Habib. Democrats say we disparage the principles that define America. We say those principles don’t apply to terrorists. That’s the difference.

We are committed to preserving democracy in America. For that reason, we will resist every Democratic effort to weaken procedures intended to sniff out terrorists, criminals and immigrants. George W. Bush knew that following the Constitution would not protect this Nation in the 21st Century. When Republicans controlled Congress, they certified the President’s belief by eradicating basic liberties in order to bolster security. Now, the Democrats are determined to reverse our work. We will resist to the last man. We would rather die than see every American treated with respect and dignity. We would rather die than follow the Constitution in every case. We will not “cooperate” or “compromise” when it comes to protecting our children from Muslims and liberal university professors. We will not “go along with the program” to increase free speech rights or abolish domestic warrantless wiretaps. No, we are determined to hold the line against liberty, because liberty is dangerous.

In a word, President Obama is playing with fire. He thinks he is defending liberty and principle. He thinks he is restoring America’s honor because he says that President Bush tarnished our image abroad. In fact, he is opening the door to terror attacks, anarchy, discord and moral rot. And who gives a flying fuck what Europe thinks of us? As long as the good people of Kentucky support me, I am happy. I don’t give a shit what the Parisians or Belgians think. Yet Mr. Obama would rather placate some communist in Holland than protect the American people from ruthless Arab suicide bombers. He would rather give the Iraqis wedding cake and free champagne than kill them once and for all. Screw free elections; let’s just kill all of them and be done with it. Who really cares whether some Iraqi goatherder votes for another Iraqi goatherder to represent him in a sham parliament? I certainly don’t. This is the Republican way, and these are the values we intend to serve in Congress as long as the Democratic dictatorship continues: Security over liberty; peace over the Constitution; commerce over dignity; privilege over rights; suspicion and rancor over reconciliation and cooperation. We will not work with the Democrats. To the contrary, we will seek to scuttle every single legislative initiative they put forward.

We look forward to resisting the Democrats. Although we would much rather hold a majority in Congress, it is quite fun to simply sit back and whine about everything the Democrats do. After all, we are not really obligated to do anything. We do not have the votes to pass what we want, so why not have some fun and just frustrate everything the Democrats try to pull? In the process, we can stand up and rail about security and our values. We are the minority voice. We will be heard. And we will never trust a Muslim, no matter how well-dressed, well-educated or well-meaning. He’s just another terrorist, and he can stick our Constitution where the sun shineth not. It wasn’t even written for him, anyway. Despite all this, we worry about this Nation with Democrats running the Homeland Security Department. Before you know it, they will be inviting Osama bin Laden and his children to Chuck E. Cheese® for pizza, beer and a kumbaya singing session with Nancy Pelosi.

This is Homeland Security in the Age of Obama. We want no part of it. Nonetheless, we still have a Second Amendment. If the Homeland Security Department cannot protect our children, then we will do it ourselves with our own rifles, pistols and shotguns. In America, we know how to defend hearth and home. And we will.

LET'S RETHINK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

By : Special Agent Frank L. Fahnding, Search & Seizure Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.

In the workplace, we constantly encounter annoyances that make life difficult. During our professional lives, we contend with bothersome supervisors, challenging accounts, deadlines and broken vending machines. We deal with demoralizing performance reviews, late nights and lost weekends. These things come with our jobs because circumstances change. That’s life. And we must strive to adapt.

But all these workplace challenges pale in comparison to the institutional difficulties I face as a law enforcement professional. I have a responsibility to root out child molesters, murderers, car thieves and stock market fraud artists. We all want to catch these scumbags. Yet I can’t do it. Why? Simple: The United States Constitution. To be more precise, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Never before has a single sentence both permitted so much crime and made my job so difficult. I would rather deal with a fire-breathing bitch who castrates me daily at the office than to live one more day with this hateful piece of constitutional text.

To catch criminals, you must find evidence. Evidence proves people guilty. That’s just how our system works. In most cases, you know if a guy is guilty if he dresses a certain way, acts a certain way, talks a certain way or if he has something to hide—or gain. But for certain reasons unknown to me, our Nation created a justice system that requires the government to find evidence to prove people guilty. It is not enough to look at a gang member and say: “Oh yeah, it was him; just look at the prison tattoos, the bandana and the torn jeans.” No, you need to call up some witnesses who swear under oath that they saw the guy pull out a knife, smack an old woman in the face and take her lunch money. If you can’t do that, you need to find the knife, find the lunch money and ask the old woman if “this is the man who did this to you.” As you can see, this is a tough business, because it is rarely easy to scrape up evidence.

Our Fourth Amendment makes the job even tougher. It provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now, I don’t speak 18th Century early American English, but this basically means that you can’t search people or places without “probable cause” or a “warrant.” It also means you can’t arrest people without “probable cause” or a “warrant.” You have no idea how difficult this is. Do you know how inconvenient it is to get a warrant? I receive tips about drug dealers all damn day, yet I can’t tell you how many times they have escaped while I try to get a goddamned warrant. Other times, my agents haul crooks into the station for robbery, then some ACLU lesbian barges in claiming we had “no probable cause” and I have to turn them loose. Or a kid says his scoutmaster has nudie pictures on his computer, so I send over some agents to take the computer. Before you know it, some bright-eyed Harvard Law grad shows up at the field office waving the Constitution in my fucking face telling me we “live in a police State.”

What a royal pain in the ass. I’m just trying to do my job and clean up the streets. Nobody likes killers, robbers, child molesters, terrorists, fraud artists, hustlers, pimps, vagabonds, ne’er-do-wells, drunks, hobos, bail-jumpers, parole violators, hit-and-run drivers, anarchists, thugs, deadbeats or gangsters. Yet I can’t effectively jail these assholes because the Fourth Amendment makes me assemble “probable cause” before I can arrest them. Do you know how much crime I could stop if I could just search people at random? Do you know how many drunk drivers I could catch if I could just arrest everyone at a bar with a parking lot? Do you know how many children I could protect if I could watch everyone’s computers at all times, then arrest anyone who logs onto a porn site? Do you know how many drugs I could get off the street if I could just walk into anyone’s home without waiting for some egghead magistrate to give me a warrant? Look, I know who the bad guys are. Let me do my job and arrest them. I can’t be bothered with all this legal mumbo-jumbo.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you’re going to say: “The Fourth Amendment protects fundamental liberties by requiring governmental officials to assemble evidence before invading citizens’ liberty.” Well guess what? I don’t care about criminals’ liberty. I know a child molester when I see one, and if that means knocking down some doors and performing a couple groundless strip-searches every now and then, by God I’m going to do it. Protecting children means we sometimes need to yield our precious “privacy.” That’s what the critics do not understand. The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee “privacy.” It just forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Frankly, I don’t care about your privacy. If you want to have sex or masturbate, there’s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you a private place to do it. Go ahead and roll the dice. I’m looking for the bad guys. There is nothing “unreasonable” about that, is there? If you ask me, no search or seizure is “unreasonable” if it is intended to find bad guys. Screw your privacy. I have children to protect.

If we really want to stop crime, we must rethink the Fourth Amendment. Back in 1787, our Founding Fathers had a clear vision in mind when they wrote the Amendment. They wanted to stop British troops from rifling through colonists’ homes and frisking them on the street. Well, we don’t live under British occupation anymore. And the Framers would be horrified to see how modern-day rapists, thugs and drug pushers use the Fourth Amendment to bail themselves out of trouble. The Fourth Amendment was intended to stop the British army, not the American police. Yet this is precisely what has happened. Today, every American police force must sit around waiting for warrants while criminals run rampant across the countryside, terrorizing old ladies, children and handicapped invalids. Our Framers would never have approved this result. I say it’s time to put the law first. It is time to stop defending criminals. And it is time to make my job easier.

During the 1930s, Germany greatly reduced crime by abolishing constitutional liberty guarantees. The German government achieved an unparalleled degree of social tranquility by permitting police forces to do their jobs without interference from courts, lawyers and civil liberties groups. In Germany, private citizens could make private complaints to the police, and the police could make arrests based upon those complaints. They could also freely search suspects’ homes without warrants, then question the suspects based upon the search. In almost every case, they won convictions. Crime plummeted. The German government understood that if someone acts suspiciously, he is probably a criminal. It made no sense to wait for a court to issue a warrant; a swift arrest did the job without the red tape. This is exactly what we should do in America. If we want to really stop drug dealers and smut peddlers, we must abolish constitutional guarantees that shield criminals. Crime in Germany was low in the 1930s because the German government did what had to be done to stop criminals. We can learn from their example.

Privacy fosters crime. True, everyone relishes the idea no can watch them at particular times or in particular places. But criminals exploit privacy to conspire, plot, terrorize, swindle and bag narcotics. The Fourth Amendment perpetuates privacy and protects it. In so doing, it aids the wicked and punishes the good. As a society, we should be less solicitous about criminals and more attuned to the people. The People want less crime, not more. Because the Fourth Amendment leads to more crime, I believe we should abolish it. After all, we live in a democracy. Shouldn’t we give the people what they want once in a while? By abolishing inane warrant requirements, probable cause burdens and expensive lawsuits that penalize police for investigating criminals, we will stop crime before it happens. By eliminating privacy, we can sniff out crime before it becomes crime. Good citizens have a right to know what suspicious citizens are up to. That is why we must completely rethink the Fourth Amendment.

I have a dream that we will one day live in a country that punishes criminals rather than protects them. I have a dream that the police will one day have the power to collect information about all citizens without fearing lawsuits or legal sanction. I have dream that law enforcement officials will have the power to listen in on any suspicious phone conversations without waiting for a magistrate to find “probable cause.” I have a dream that our Nation will protect our children, not allow molesters to withhold evidence from prosecutors and courts. I believe that we can reduce crime in America. We must merely have the courage to abolish outmoded constitutional text. We can do it. We can protect the children. I know that every good citizen would be perfectly willing to cede his privacy in order to stop crime and to protect the children.

There are some things in life more important than privacy. We all want to live in a safe society. We revile murderers, robbers, thieves, pickpockets and stock market pirates. Don’t we have a right to effectively pursue these pernicious evildoers? I believe we do. And by abolishing the Fourth Amendment, we will allow law enforcement professionals to effectively protect us all from them.

On that happy day, my job will be easier. When I can do my job without difficulty, you will sleep better at night—unless you hear a knock at your door at 3 AM. But never fear: Even if you are under investigation, remember that you are doing your part to protect the children. You want to protect the children, don’t you?