State of the Circus 2006
Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 09:13PM 
Before the evening began, Cindy Sheehan, who has been an outspoken opponent of Iraqi Freedom and who lost her son to the war, was the invited guest of Dem. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey from California to the State of the Union address. Ms. Sheehan, who is considering making a run for the Senate in California and challenging Diane Feinstein, was taken by police from the chamber for the unveiling of a t-shirt she wore that read: "2245 Dead. How many more?" The photo (Photo of Cindy leaving the premises). One has to wonder what Sheehan has against dressing up and putting on a little bit of makeup for the State of the Union address. In reality, security was concerned that Ms. Sheehan might make a commotion during the address, as Code Pink did during the Inaugural Address of 2005. Michelle Malkin reports:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey is the member of Congress reportedly responsible for giving Cindy Sheehan access to the State of the Union address last night. When it comes to whether she knew Sheehan would pull the stunt she pulled, Woolsey has absolutely no plausible deniability. She is one of disruptive guerilla group Code Pink’s biggest advocates.
Recall that Code Pink obtained 16 tickets—reportedly from unidentified members of Congress from New York and California— to last year’s inaugural address, which they interrupted repeatedly with their screams and banner-unfurling antics.
Woolsey should be ashamed of sponsoring Sheehan’s attempt to turn a historic, ceremonial event in American history into a cheap moonbat spectacle. Did she also supply tickets to Code Pink protesters last year?
What a great moment, seeing new the new Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito (with a beaming wife) enter the Congress along with Clarence Thomas and John Roberts with the rest of the justices… yes, a sense of equilibrium is returning to the United States of America.
"Tonight the state of our Union is strong, and together we will make it stronger."
Pres. Bush touched on these themes:
-Coretta Scott King dies at 78
-"We’re winning in Iraq and look forward to a free Democratic Iran."
-The economy is healthy.
-AIDS; 1 million Americans suffer from AIDS. 1/2 of those are African Americans.
One of the most poignant discourses by the President was focused on the fall of social and moral ills and the rise of a "revolution of conscience":
America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.
In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)
These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation — a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record. (Applause.)
AWESOME!!! Read the entire text here
Some interesting moments of the evening were:
-Hillary laughing and shaking her head after this statement from the President:
"The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
Watch the video (hat tip: Expose the Left, formerly Political Teen)
-Democrats standing and applauding that they killed Social Security reform:
"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security — (applause) — yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse." -Pres. Bush
It is not known how many American seniors also stood and applauded the Democrats killing Social Security reform, but word is it wasn’t many.
Democratic Response is by Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s response: (entire text)
(Which is?? He didn’t actually say…. Oh, the poor guy. He’s new.)
"Many states, following the lead of Illinois, have set up simple ways to help our seniors purchase safe, American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the price they would pay here."
(Did he just say American-made from other countries??)
"If we want to replace the division that grips our nation’s capital, we need a change. Democrats are leading that reform effort, working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results."
Yes, we need a change! We need to change Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin….. Vote Republican!
Expose the Left (formerly Political Teen)
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Hooah Wife
Don Surber
Sister Toldjah
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/371385
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (89)
Oh yeah... Cindy who????? ha- ha......
AubreyJ.........
As for Timmy (I talk about my faith in public, AND I'm a Dimocrat) Kaine, my "name" for him is EXACTLY why the Dims choose him to deliver the rebuttal! I ain't buying it! Even the devil talks about and believes in GOD!
At least I think I have heard both from Hillary.
That raised left eyebrow thing from Kaine, is reminincent of the same from Alan Colmes. It seems to raise in proportion to the level of lie they are telling!
If I was a Christian named Abel, I would tread lightly around Kaine!
Overall the speech was fairly tame. I continue to be disappointed with the level of sophistication. I was glad to see his statements on free trade. I agree with you Kaine's point about Drugs was convoluted.
Obviously you must believe that Liberal activists are above the law. There is a law in that NO banners, protests, etc. are allowed inside or outside of the Capitol building. It goes for EVERYONE, or do you think that because you agree with Moonbat Sheehan that she is above the law?
According to Ms. Sheehan:
"I had just sat down and...I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, 'Protester.' He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs." (see http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml )
She did not unveil a banner or make a scene (as has been reported.
RAM, should all of those Republicans who stood up displaying their purple thumbs last year also be censured on the floor? That was moor of a "stunt" than Sheehan wearing a tee shirt in an upper gallery. I guess stunts are okay as long as they support the ruling party.
I was absolutely thrilled when I saw Judge Alito dressed in his honored robe, with the other Supreme Court justices, made me proud!!
Excellent post Amy, as usual!
I am unfamiliar in your ways but like freedom. Is "Moonbat" the correct way to address someone you disagree with?
If you're going to write something, you ought to have the courage to sign your name to it.
I see. "right-wingers" aren't normal people. You're right: we're exceptional.
Unfortunately, you've decided not to comply with the anonymous posting warning so your last comment, although a good comment, is deleted.
Mental, draw yourself a map. You're rude, so your comment, too, is zapped.
Can liberals not be polite? Is it a genetic thing? I don't get it. Don't follow rules and are rude. Geesh.
(sorry, post)
Also, I have the right to allow certain comments. I have known Trent for some time. I'm not sure what you have to hide, but it's your choice to be legit or not.
Sorry. You seem to have some interesting things to say.
The speech was good. I don't think I need to debate that here.
What made it great was having Sheehan removed from the room. And the photo of Cindy leaving the premises? I envision a caption that reads "There's the exit. Please don't let it hit you on the butt on the way out."
The Democrats were embarrassing. To the country. To their party. But we can thank them for their stunts: they're showing their true colors. (Actually, this televised embarrasment started the other day with Ted "Where's my drink?!" Kennedy, busting a blood vessel complaining about Alito confirmation.) But everyone always seems to forgive Kennedy because of the family tree.
Let everyone ignore the antics of [nearly] the entire Democratic Party sitting on their butts. Particularly when Bush made the statement about America not being hit again [by terrorists]. (Perhaps they'd be happier if we *were* hit again?)
Democrats. Liberals. Moonbat extreme left kook wackos.
The line seperating these groups is very, very thin... and getting thinner.
RLR
M.L, come on, man, if you have something to say, post YOUR e-mail or URL, and keep it respectful.
Consider this fact which we are all guilty of: name-calling obscures what you are trying to promote and is seed from a unfruitful place.
I used www.yahoo.com just like trent did. Either that works or not. If not you and I differ on what the word rule means. If you mean that everything is in your subjective perview, why must you insist on deleting posts that are niether malicious or inappropriate?
Let's not hijack the subject.
I don't think the Democrats realized how badly they appeared (and they probably don't care) when they applauded themselves for killing Social Security reform, just as with the Patriot Act. Unfortunately for them, Americans are getting suspicious of their benevolence against America and toward their own self interests.
http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html
Rules are rules for everyone, not just selected parties as some would have you believe.
BTW, this comment screen says email and URL are OPTIONAL!
I am puzzled by what privacy it is that people are so eager to preserve. The surveillance program is for people al-Qaeda contacts in the US. I don't understand the risk of preserving some phantom privacy at the expense of human lives. What privacy, and whose, is being violated?
The connation is that Pres. Bush is looking through your grandmother's underwear drawer or spying on your sister using the bathroom.
My husband is a soldier, so I totally understand wanting peace. He has been to Iraq for a year during the most dangerous part of the war; the beginning. HOWEVER, peace doesn't just happen. The goal of peace is executed over the long run but worked out in the short run. A person, for example, jogs every day and eats healthy to prevent future health problems and to attain and maintain health.
That is what Pres. Bush is doing to preserve peace. He's going through the painstaking process of paving a road that leads to world wide peace. It will never be fully achieved, but at least we can help preserve future generations from unnecessary enemy attacks.
M.L, you don't bring a pig to a ball. If the United States has dignity, it must present itself as dignified. Some unkept lady with a slogan written across her chest is not fitting for a Presidential event. If you are married, did you wear a tux?
2) I do <i>so</i> love that only democrats can be "partisan". Though, it is nice to know that if I register as a republican, I become "patriotic".
Sorry, just frustrated.
While I can not speak for everyone, I believe there is a reason we have branches of government; checks and balances. We have protocols to be followed when we want to invistigate terrorists. I'm just asking they be followed. The judicial branch of our government is there for that purpose. When the protocols are not followed we have no way of knowing exactly what the executive branch may be doing. Ergo the concern for violation of ones privacy. I did not say not mean to insinuate that the president is spying in our drawers (no pun intended). I just don't understand why he just can't follow the law.
My son has spent 2 tours of duty in Iraq. I, like you, have stayed awake nights worried for my loved ones safety. He is also stationed at Ft. Bragg and currently under stop loss for pehaps yet another tour. When will he have served enough? I am also a veteran. My entire male lineage has served in the military in DEFENSE of our nation. Too bad my son had to be the first to serve in OFFENSE of a soverign nation. Don't get me wrong, I would support this presidents attempts at 'peace' as you call it if, indeed, we were fighting the actual persons and organization responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and not Iraq.
I ask you this, if we will never fully achieve peace who can we insure our future generations will not experience unnecessary attacks? I agree peace does not just happen however, war will stand in the way of peace every time.
I would also like to know if you are familiar with The Project for a New American Century? If so, I am interested in knowing your views on it.
Please tell you husband I thank him for his service to our nations. As a former army wife also, I thank you for your sacrifice.
As to your analogy of pigs and balls: Let me ask you this -- would you not recognize a marriage where the groom did not wear a tuxedo? Is a tuxedo required? Would the president still be the president if he gave the speech last night with no tie on? The wearing of a sweatshirt was deemed acceptable attire for the persons in question but a T-shirt with writing on it was not considered appropriate. Granted I prefer to wear a suit, but why should I place this requirement on others in the context of a public assembly where in principle T-shirt preferring people have equal representation
Here are the details for those with such access:
Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan (washingtonpost.com)
By LAURIE KELLMAN, February 01, 2006
AMY -
GREAT article and a very good debate. You know how to stir up a (virtual) room, girl! Stick to your guns (as I know you will) about what comments you allow/disallow...this isn't the friggin' street-corner, it is your blog and you can do whatever you want to with it. Those who don't like your rules have lots of other choices out there.
MOONBAT -
You said "...there was a mechanism in place to retroactively clear warrants. This hoop was side-stepped in the name of arrogance (I would love to know why this is wrong)."
I initially questioned the 72-hour FISA retroactivity angle myself. Turns out that General Hayden (formerly Director NSA) has your answer. Read the transcript at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf ...since you would LOVE to know.
On the dress code issue - should there not be a line drawn somewhere? This was not an impromptu Q and A here...
Could you please either cite or explain your source. This would be the traditional method of addressing a point. I am sure that you read and are capable of supporting your argement in your own words. What meaning did you get from the 21 page draft that you cite.
I am sorry in the case that you were being intentionally obtuse, for in that case I failed to be suitably unimpressed.
While not all of them have the "agreement box" that you have to agree to, to use their site, many, (if not all), have many things in the fine print that allow for monitoring of what you say, yet people give their OK everyday, MOST without even reading what they are agreeing too!
Now for you Evidentally Mental, the law is the law.A t-shirt with a protest statement on it is a political protest. The State of the Union address and standing in solidarity with people that have been oppressed by a murderous dictator are so far from comparason, I am surprized I am even trying to explain it to a brain dead liberal. Perhaps if Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, and a few other Conservatives had not been physically attacked for simply expressing their views, (and by your party, the 'supposed' champions of free speech), Sheehan would have not been taken out so soon, and we could have seen what she really was going to do. I know it would have gone past the t-shirt!
As I said, GWB is a better man than I, because Sheehan has had the charges dropped in every case so far. No wonder she keeps doing it, there seems to be no penalty, at least for her.
Amy has the right to allow anyone she wants, or bar anyone she wants. If you don't like it, start your own blog, then you can do the same.
I wish liberal trolls would be honest enough to admit that they only want freedom of speech for their beliefs, or their hatred of Bush. If they were truly for free speech, there would still be prayer in schools, 10 Commandment displays, and no pie throwing at Conservative speakers.
I wonder what would happen if I was to hit Sheehan with a pie in front of her followers? I bet "roughed up" would be putting it mildly!
I don't worry when I join a group like you mentioned because I KNOW what I am getting into (yes I read the privacy notices.) Therefore I believe this is a non-issue. With secret surveillance I am not privy to what is being done. There IS a difference.
While I don't think the troll comment was directed at me, I can be honest in admitting I want what is guaranteed by the Constitution. It was our fore fathers who believed in separation of church and state so much so it was included in the 1st amendment. They were running from religious persecution after all. I do not hate GWB, I dislike his policies and the direction he is leading OUR country.
I wonder why your first thought was for violence toward Ms Sheehan rather than understanding? After all, how many of your children have served/been killed in this war of choice? I believe those who serve and the families of them are entitled to voice their dislike. After all, my son and I fought for their right to do so.
Also, are you familiar with The Project for a New American Century? If so, I am interested in your views as well.
Note that conservatives are better mannered than to show up at say a Clinton SOTU speech and so such. The Dems need a to go to charm school.
And it's very possible that Cindy Sheehan (who I've had the unfortunate pleasure of encontering.. she's totally unhinged) would have caused a commotion. Think of how it would have appeared to Bin Laden or our other enemies to have such a vocal dissenter making a scene. Just as Dems have done in the past, it would have encouraged our enemies to keep up the good fight giving them the idea that their PR war is working. Cindy loves making a spectacle of herself. The police acted pre-emptively. I think the police absolutely did the right thing and I hope Sheehan was humiliated. She should be.
I'm with R.A.M.... that eyebrow thing with Kaine was just TOO annoying. I had to turn it off because I couldn't stand it anymore. Yuck.
Regards...
"You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire."
Post, I am a fairly decent person when someone disagrees with me or I disagree with them, however, in Ms. Sheehan's case, I agreed with the use of that term, because she is using the death of her son, to get publicity and attention, and I feel she has mocked his service and has dishonored his death for far too long.
MOONBAT -
Not knowing you, I took your word that you desire an answer on this. I gave you the direction to read and enlighten yourself - I don't think I should have to spoon feed it to you. I readily confess, I simply cannot put it better than General Hayden and, therefore, directed you there.
Here are my pithy comments for you, since you asked. FISA is still being used, but is completely impractical for much of this kind of moment's notice surveillance, which often leads nowhere (just like any investigation following leads). The 72-hour grace period is misleading, and Hayden explains why.
Yes, it IS a 21 page document, but presumably you read as well. Go to the bottom of Page 9, then read through Page 10 of the doc. Again, the link is http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf. Is that plain enough for you?
Timmy's comment is rude. I respectfully request that his comment be stricken. If I can't leave rude comments it doesn't seem fair that your uber-chauvinistic American conservative readers should be able to make such comments with impunity.
Since I was drafted during Vietnam, served, and was given an HONORABLE discharge, I think I have as much right as you to speak my mind.
YES, I have lost relatives in combat and friends too. Since you bring it up, when and where did YOU serve?
I got a real chuckle out of your comment about our forefathers running from religious persecution. What they were trying to escape was the NON-freedom to express their chosen religion! The same thing that is going on in America today.
It is the radical left, (that is spreading rapidly to the mainstream Democrat party), that is trying to remove GOD, and Jesus Christ from the public eye.
People like you try to stand the TRUTH on it's head, then when losing the arguement, claim you are being mistreated.
Honestly, I don't have the time or patience to debate people that don't respect my intelligence enough to think I can't see right through them. You are all starting to sound alike.
I guess I shouldn't be surprized though.
Best regards, --my friend!
One last thing. Sheehan and the left-wing nuts, have "playing the victim", down to a science.
An example is above with "Evidentally Mental" crying about Timmer being "rude" to him, while poor, poor Sheehan 'claims' to have been roughed up.
Deb simply uses the, "I have family/friends who served, do you?" ploy. It backfired when I actually do/did.
But it wouldn't matter if I did or not. I served my Country so ALL, (including Sheehan) can dissent!
Deb, -----that does NOT mean I have to give up MY RIGHT to say how I feel about what she, you, or ANYONE else says!
That would be denying MY right to free speech. What part of that don't you understand????????
Deb, I went back and looked at what I said. This was a hypothetical, (the pie), the part about being "roughed up" was what her followers would have done to me!
I was trying to point out how differently the left and the right react to dissent.
After all, when Bill Kristol was hit with a pie, and Ann Coulter was barely missed with two of them, their attackers were treated civilly, and neither ended up facing any charges.
I think if Sheehan, Sharpton, Je$$e Jack$on, Farrakan (sp), etc were hit woth a pie, there would be little left of the attacker!
The left, (over all), is MUCH more violent than the right could ever be!
I am not crying about Timmy being rude to me. He was rude to Moonbat. I am merely making the case that Amy's "rules" and her reasons for deleting comments are very subjective. She claims to operate fairly, but the only opposing view that she regularly allows seems to be Jez. And, while Jez makes good points and plays devil's advocate very well, Jez's ideology does not seem to be that of a far-left radical. I guess Jez is the Alan Colmes of this blog.
As I told Amy, it is her blog and she can allow or disallow comments as she sees fit. But, it seems dishonest to post rules and then only apply them to opposing views.
Deb,
Right, checks and balances: Executive Branch, Legislative and Judicial. The protocols you say we need to follow to investigate TERRORISTS changed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001 when TERRORISTS killed almost 4000 Americans on American soil. The President of the United States has not violated any protocol... even Pres. Clinton used surveillance. It is part of the Executive privilege.
It’s also essential to keep in mind that this is a post 9/11 world. The world has changed in a big way. More drastic measures need to be taken or another 9/11 WILL occur (although the surveillance isn’t truly a drastic measure, it’s common sense). The entire military is being reshaped because of 9/11. My hubby is changing Army doctrine based on his experience in Iraq. Everything is different. Once you’ve been raped, you take stronger precautions. That’s all that’s happening here.
I’d be interested to see if you can produce a way in which the President has overstepped the “checks and balances”. What law has he broken? If he was breaking the law, why was he briefing the US CONGRESS over the past several years? They are all complicate then as well in whatever illegal activity you suppose took place. I read today a disgusting Newsweek piece from the Jan. 9 issue calling it an “imperialistic presidency”. Yeah, right. The American voter is a co-conspirator, then.
Also, I still don’t see how tracking al-Qaeda calls into the US violates anyone’s rights. Can you name one American whose rights have been violated by the surveillance program?
Again, my shock is that anyone is overly concerned about the “protocol” to investigate terrorists if it makes the US vulnerable. There are TERRORISTS. Considering the events of 9/11, if al-Qaeda calls the US, don’t you think the President, who’s job it is to serve and PROTECT, as well as execute, should know just why they are communicating?
Sounds like you have an awesome son. AIRBORNE! Is he a paratrooper ? Does he share your anti-war sentiment? When you say, “Too bad my son had to be the first to serve in OFFENSE of a sovereign nation”, do you realize that we weren’t fighting Iraq, but Saddam Hussein who was enemy #1 of Iraq? He hijacked Iraq. We fought/fight on BEHALF of Iraq, not against it. And how can it be that you have such a long history of military men in your family but none have gone on the offensive against a “sovereign nation?” What about Japan? Germany? Vietnam? Grenada? I’m very confused by what you’re asserting except that it appears you’re reciting verbatim liberal talking points.
Sigh, I shall now make the 9/11 - al-Qaeda connection.
First, ask yourself this question: if Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, why did we also fight Germany? If Osama attacked the US, why did we go after Saddam AS WELL? Because this is a comprehensive war on terror, not a comprehensive war on Osama Bin Laden.
-Khidhir Hamza, the highest-ranking Iraqi scientist ever to defect and live to tell about it, said in anOctober 2001 interview with CNN :
CNN: Do you believe there is any link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? If so, should the U.S. resume attacks on Iraq in the name of stopping terrorism?
HAMZA: I think there are several links between Osama and Saddam. The Iraqi ambassador in Turkey, Hajazi, visited Afghanistan, and met with Osama and his associates. He’s a powerful figure in Iraq. There are several reported meetings between him and Osama’s associates. Osama was sighted in an Iraqi hotel in 1996, by the lawyer for Arkan, the Serbian leader. [Regarding] the reported sighting by the Czech intelligence of Mohammed Atta, and the Iraqi intelligence agent — to do this meeting, Atta had to drive from Germany and Czechoslovakia, a long drive, meet him, and go back. Which means it was an important meeting for supplies, coordination. It couldn’t have been by accident.
Many other meetings were reported between Osama associates and Iraqi intelligence. There are reports by Iraqi defectors of bin Laden’s people being trained in Iraqi terrorist camps. They are credible stories, because they don’t contradict each other. They confirm each other in types of training, places, the people trained. In a covert operation like this, you don’t expect much more information. There will be no smoking gun. All sightings confirm a multi-layered coordination between Saddam and bin Laden, in terms of training, support, and supplies. That could have included anthrax.”
Here are some reasons why we’re in Iraq:
1. -12 years of Iraq firing at US Air Force planes in the No-Fly Zone (1991-2003).
-Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. That would be considered an act of aggression.
-The U.N. refused to enforce it’s resolutions against Iraq and failed to make Saddam comply.
-Saddam paid $25000 to the families of terrorists who’d blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible. (Israel is an ally)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sought medical attention in Baghdad in 2001 when he was injured in Afghanistan.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldragnet/sought_alqaida.htm
CNN- Feb. 13, 1999
Saddam offers Osama asylum as he is on the run from the US.
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/fullsizedmural.jpg
All for now...more tomorrow....
He is in violation of the National Security Act according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Their report is available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
He is also in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which requires the president to get warrants from the special FISA court and that such surveillance not be conducted against United States persons. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html
Also, he is in violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution which states:
"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 or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now go back and read that again, I'll wait...
It's pretty straight forward. There is nothing there that says "unless we are at war" or "unless the President thinks it's a good idea to spy on Americans."
Amy: "I’d be interested to see if you can produce a way in which the President has overstepped the 'checks and balances'."
If you look at Amendment IV again, you will see that it requires the executive branch to go before the judicial branch to obtain a warrant. Even with the secret rubber-stamp FISA court the Bush Administration refused to follow the law and get warrants. They could even claim emergency circumstances and spy for 72 hours before going to the court, but apparently that would be too inconvenient. FISA allows for warrantless surveillance for "a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." Congress did not pass such a declaration so you can't use the "at war" excuse.
Amy: "Can you name one American whose rights have been violated by the surveillance program?"
Names? Not yet. As soon as FOIA requests are granted or someone leaks documents we will see names. Maybe they are spying on you Amy. Have you phoned your Iraqi priest friend or anyone else outside the US in the past four years? If so there's a good chance that *your* rights were violated.
Amy, it is very clear that the Bush Administration violated the law. It will be demonstrated in court sooner or later. They probably could have done most of the same surveillance legally but their arrogance got in the way.