Happy Dependence Day!
Government’s natural relationship to power is much the same as a man’s natural relationship to sex: it wants as much as possible from as many people as it can get to give it up. In a civilized society, it tries to have its way through charm and persuasion; among savages, it takes what it wants by force. But always and everywhere, there is one unfailingly certain method of scoring the booty: buy it.
Trading welfare for power is the second oldest profession.
Wherever the government seems to provide, it actually rules. This is the “mild” despotism feared by Alexis de Tocqueville, the brilliant 19th century political thinker whose writing inspired Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. This seemingly benevolent form of dictatorship, he wrote in the second volume of Democracy in America, is a tyranny that would “degrade men without tormenting them,” “an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure [people's] gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood.”
The debased citizenry this nanny state ultimately produces was described in a deathless phrase by the great Roman satirist Juvenal. Writing less than a century after the Romans had frittered away their republic, he observed, “The people, who once gave commands, elected officials, bestowed legions and everything else now care for only two things: bread and circuses.”
Entitlements are the bread in Juvenal’s equation.
Whether or not entitlements are given with charitable intentions, they are not charity. Charity is freely bestowed. It ennobles the giver and may create within the recipient a gratitude and sense of responsibility that moves him to self-reliance. Entitlements are an act of force. Government wrests property and services away from one person to bestow them on another at its own will, by its own wisdom and ultimately to its own benefit. At first, the recipient may think that it’s only the rich man’s freedom which is being stripped away and what’s it to him? But soon enough he finds that government is now well within its rights to control whatever it is paying to support: his behavior, his consumption, his religion, his words. He may live well only as long as he lives in obedience.
But never mind. If the people have become corrupted in their hearts, if they have lost the will for self-governance, if they have abandoned their traditions of liberty and turned their backs on the sacrifices of their dead, not even nine principled judges can ultimately save them from the poisoned pill of government “generosity.”
A well-stated synopsis. Our republic is virtue dependent in its citizens and leaders.
As Thomas Jefferson observed:
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
And I remember in 7th grade reading a Benjamin Franklin quote and, while appreciating the wisdom, feeling safe and sound believing that such could never happen in or to America:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Now, I am now all too aware of what he warned us against.
Roberts’s argument, of course, is not that we have to pay a tax for not buying something the gov’t wants us to buy- it is that the very thing we don’t want to buy is itself a tax. There are a number of silver linings to this cloud: 1)He proscribed the power of the gov’t under the Commerce Clause to force us to buy anything (unless it’s called a tax- in which case it becomes much harder to pass). This means that the Left can’t try this trick again. 2)He made it possible for the now newly-named tax to be repealed with a simple majority in congress. This, to quote our current VP, is a fairly BFD. Because (3)Roberts has so energized the Right that Left is staring at a tsumamia this November.
We can’t help it that the Left is too dumb to see it coming. Let’s move on, my ass. It’s pretty clear that Roberts views this whole mess as bad law, but he washes his hands of it by saying that it is not his job to save us from it. Sure, he caved, in a sense. But what did you expect? That’s always been the problem the Right has with the far Left, hasn’t it? Emotional blackmail. It’s a little like dealing with someone who is slightly mentally/emotionally ill. You can’t argue with him as you can with a ‘normal’ person. His identity is so rooted in his politics that he’s going to treat you like crap because you disagree with him. So you decide to go along, to get along. It’s easier that way, even if it isn’t right. So, thank you Justice Roberts for wimping out. This will all turn out pretty good, IMO. As you say, it’s the job of the electorate to fix this. That’s us, by the way. I’m looking forward to seeing that horde of Romneys overrunning the WH next year.
The ruling on the commerce clause is not an Opinion of the Court. It is the opinion of Justice Roberts. In other words, there was no ruling on the commerce clause restrictions, as no one joined Roberts on this section.
I think you’re wrong about Roberts. I think he sent a clear message to the voting populace that the court is not there to clean up after our messes…i.e. voting the wrong people in. And it’s not. We have to live collectively with our actions…of putting these same yahoos in office is what got us here today.
Actually, the SCOTUS should clean up our messes with regard to infringements upon the Constitution, simply because the justices have taken oaths of office to uphold that Constitution. It is their duty to refuse to apply any law that infringes upon the Constitution.
Problem is, if nobody else upholds the Constitution, we are mistaken in assuming that the SCOTUS will do any better.
Oh, I forgot to mention this:
BTW, for something that’s also a pretty BFD that no one is talking about except for Dick Morris
(http://www.dickmorris.com/courts-medicaid-reversal-big-win-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/)
is the court’s rejection of the Medicaide Extension, which Morris claims would have been by far the most expensive feature of the ACA.
The road that goes from citizen to subject is downhill. History teaches us that climbing back is impossible. Once in a while, a tyranny falls, but what is it replaced by? Sometimes the pretense of one, but never the real thing. We are falling into a trap, which is just about to close if we don’t extricate ourselves urgently.
History also teaches that one group did climb out. They’ve celebrated the impossible ( the Passover ) every year since.
Americans have thrown off chains before. But not without the G-d of the Jews. If we remember G-d, He might remember us.
“The god of the Jews”, hmmmm! Since they deny that our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God, their god cannot be the God worshipped by Christians, ie, the Father of Jesus Christ.So he must be some other “god”? But the bible assures us that there is but one God. So the god of the Jews is a ficticious entity.
One wonders how one may efficaciously worship a non-existent
The alternative is that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of that God and it is Jesus they refuse to worship. That attitude will not sell well in Heaven, either. Idea!!! Lets all agree to Trust, Love and Obey Jesus Christ and see how it works out?!
we had wage and price controls. we got rid of them. we had white house conferences on how much hairdressers could charge for a haircut. we got rid of them.
I don’t know how, but we can get rid of this.
We got rid of Prohibition.
Half the electorate is on the teat. Okay, well, when people start telling what it’s like- like, say, my next door neighbor whose entire life is on the gov’t teat- a social worker told her she had to move her own mother out of the house, or she’d lose her children. That’s not cool. That she’d have to put her kid on ritalin- or lose custody. Who wants to live that way? It might mean enough money for Disneyland- but that’s one week. The other 51- are not cool weeks.
I don’t know that Obama can get the people who voted, last time. I met people who had literally never voted in their lives going to the polls. They wanted to put a black man in the White House. They didn’t know what his positions were. They didn’t really care. That’s a been there, done that, sort of thing now. It’s boring, now.
At least that’s what I keep telling myself.
and, honestly, eventually, the money runs out. Britain had a mother’s allowance. When Mrs Thatcher stopped it, it was $2. People screamed- but who stays home for $2 a month? I don’t know that people get to keep their welfare, but, say, it’s $10 a month. Texas keeps really low rates of assistance. It’s hard work being dependent here. It’s easier to be poor and working. I don’t know that that’s not the model for the rest of the country.
ari, we got rid of slavery by killing the slavemasters. Curiously, they belonged to the same political party trying to keep us on the
plantationcollective now.I’m afraid that we’re reaching the point where those of us remaining who value the idea of liberty and independence are going to have to rebel and say “no” and mean it. And we’re going to have to do it while we still have the 2nd amendment and God on our sides.
Look, the only way that this decline will be stopped is if Americans return to G-D. Our faith has been our one big strength. The reason that America is in a mess is due to people turning their backs on G-D and seeking after government as a false god. Or wanting a secular messiah to save them (the Great Lord Obama to the left and Ron Paul to the right). Sorry but we are so far gone that no man will be able to help us.
The one good news is that the evangelical movement seems to be growing. As the institutions of the Industrial Age die, new ones rise up for the Information Age. Thus collectivism is dying (unions, socialism, communism, fascism) as well as the Protestant movement (mainstream and fundamentalists). In there place is the evangelical movement which has adapted to the needs of the time. Evangelicals are no longer protestants, no longer limited by the legalism of the Industrial Age. The evangelicals have grown quickly across the nation. And are now making gains in the corridor from Washington DC to Boston. In time they will have great influence though will stay away from political power.
Likewise we are seeing growth in the ultra orthodox (Haredi) communities within Judaism. Many secular Jews are returning to their roots, seeking a more observant lifestyle. Chabad is one of the largest of these communities.
Look for the leftwingers to seek religion as well as the evangelicals grow. Many leftists will convert to Islam while homosexuals and feminists will migrate to the Emerging Church.
So we may see many people rescued from being dependent on government. Faith is very powerful and is one of America’s greatest weapons. Without faith we stop being free.
Andy, when does the free stuff run out before the takers take over the makers?
Is it racist to expect people to have some skin in the game in order to vote.
SMDH
This is why suffrage was originally linked to property ownership.
No one who is a net taker of government largesse gets a vote.
And church membership- in the church chosen by the State.
I think our current government has well exceeded King George in oppresive rule. To get back to where we were would be a bigger miracle than creating this wonderful constitution in the first place. I fear if Obama isn’t re-elected he will try a coup by filing hundreds of lawsuits and trying to stay in power. The smooth transition is not a givin.
Thank you Mr. Klavan for one of the most concise and to the point articles I have read in a long time. Unfortunately it is one that conservatives innately understand and liberal are unable to comprehend.
I hope a number of liberals have their road to Damascus moment before the coming election.
I’m surprised the Government allowed his to say this.
Ommmmmmm. Someone’s gonna tell.
Let me riff on with your theme there, sir:
Republicans are cruel. They demand that you stand on your own two feet. Democrats are kind. They shall provide everything you need. They ask only that you kneel.
Orion
Excellently put!!!
Hi Andrew
I enjoy your posts on the culture. Here is a song “Occupy This (Occupy That)” I think you will like. I have deliberately sung it in a Dylanesque manner.
You can hear the complete song or hear an excerpt on itunes
“Occupy This (Occupy That)” on itunes
People say that the Tea Party Movement hasn’t developed a Bob Dylan. See what you think.
Oops! I will post that link again.
complete song
Look, Mr Klavan, conservatives (with a small ‘c’) already have an enormous problem defining what exactly they mean by ‘minimal’ government without trying to equate the expansionary liberal instinct with an abnormal sex drive. The vast majority of post-adolescent men do not seek as much sex as they can get, with as many women as they can. You insult not just men but women too.
It is easy enough to describe what ‘big’ government is. Liberals (and, let’s be clear, conservatives too) seek to expand their powers when they are in government. Since power equals money and vice-versa, federal expansionists will seek not only to increase taxes but also to find newer, previously untaxed areas, to impose taxes on. (As a case in point, the new socialist government in France is proposing to tax computer screens, whether desktop, laptop or cellphone).
Neither Reagan nor Bush ever made a serious effort to pull back the reach of government.
But what exactly is ‘minimal’ government? Nobody knows. But what everybody knows is that as societies grow more complex, as competition for resources increase, governments will be forced willy-nilly to get a better handle on things.
So, it is natural for special interests to want government to provide. Big business wants government to cater to their needs by keeping taxes low. The poor want government to cater to their needs by increasing spending. Everybody robs Peter to pay Paul.
The confusion in Republican minds is exposed by their reaction to CJ Roberts’ ruling. They expected him to act as a fully paid-up conservative, voting for their political interests, just as Obama wants the Court to defer to his political interests. Romney is hobbled by Romneycare. GOP grandees in Washington have constantly talked of keeping various aspects of Obamacare alive.
Liberals criticise Obama of not doing enough to sell the advantages of Obamacare. But have the Republicans done enough to expose its specific dangers to the electorate?
Romney needs to get out his vision for his first term, just as Obama needs to spell out his vision for a second term. Despite Obama’s fundamental weaknesses, he is still ahead of Romney. Why?
“But what exactly is ‘minimal’ government? Nobody knows.”
Nonsense. Ask any libertarian. They’ll tell you what it is: a government that provides police, courts, and armed forces . . . and nothing else.
I agree with your definition of minimal government; that’s the classic (libertarian) definition. The big question is how many people will vote for that? I expect that even most conservatives are going to be uneasy at the implications of losing some government programs.
While conservatives are generally big on defense and would support a strong military, I think they will be less supportive of cutting off federal funding for, say, road construction. Roads aren’t really part of “police, courts, and armed forces” unless you want to stretch the meaning of those terms. (For example, someone could argue that roads are part of providing a police service since the police cars need roads to get to you.)
How many other government programs would be subject to the same qualms?
And yes, I know you’re not actually proposing that there wouldn’t be roads, just discussing how they would be funded. What is the conservative view of that? Would it simply become a job for state taxes to fund roads instead of federal taxes? Or would all roads be privatized and made into the property of corporations that might well levy tolls to use those roads?
Obviously, parallel considerations could be discussed for all the other things the federal government does which conservatives would want to handle differently. Unfortunately, I doubt 1 in 100 conservatives has actually given active thought to how things would work if the federal government didn’t do them. In fact, I doubt that 1 in 100 conservatives has even realized that the way many things are done now would change quite dramatically.
I don’t think we have an immediate need to understand how the country would work if we actually started conforming with the Constitution again – it may be all we can do to put Mitt Romney in the White House this year – but somewhere along the line, we WILL need to do some serious thinking so that we can explain to everyone, incluiding conservatives, what we have in mind.
Once you make the bulk of the population dependent on government for just about everything, from food and housing to healthcare and employment, then the government owns you. Call it slavery, servitude, or just lack of free will, whatever it is, it is NOT freedom. And whatever the government gives you, it can take away from you too, as the people in Greece are finding out right now.
Greece has massive unemployment, sky high taxes, and most of their benefits are being taken away from the population simply because the government can’t afford it anymore. And now the Greeks have to go literally begging, hat in hand, to the Germans for their next paycheck. And the Greeks are not humiliated by this because of their sense of entitlement. They feel they deserve all of these benefits, so it’s up to the government to figure out how to keep the money coming, at whatever the cost. The Greek people don’t care if they have to suffer humiliation after humiliation to get more loans they know they can’t ever pay back, but like the crack addict that will do literally anything for his next fix, the Greeks will say and do just about anything for their next loan. It’s pathetic, and I doubt Americans want to end up like that.
And we won’t. Why? Because we have too much spirit, too much individuality, and way too much self-respect to go down the road the Greeks have ended up on. But the window for turning things around is closing rapidly. We only have one more chance to turn things around and that’s coming up in November. If we do not seize this opportunity, we WILL end up like Greece. And that would be a horrible end for a nation that at one time was the last best hope for humanity.
There’s your problem in a nutshell. America is going the way of Greece, horror of horrors.
Forget Greece. Go back 15 decades or so. Lincoln’s new Republican Party fought two, not one, internecine wars in defense of its core beliefs. First, Lincoln had to see off opponents from his own party (Douglas, et al). Then he fought a hot war where white men killed white men, some to abolish slavery, some to preserve it. Lincoln proved the victor and made America modern, confident enough in its own integrity and confident enough in its new-found strenght to confront tyrants around the world. Without Lincoln, the 20th Century would never have been an American century.
How did the Republicans lose this priceless and hard won jewel. Today, Blacks are solidly ranged against any Republican, RINO or not. And American international cred is in the basement. What went wrong?
That’s the problem. To use Klavan’s crass analogy, Liberals pursue women and win. Republicans expect women to fall into their laps of their own accord, and lose.
Why has the Tea Party allowed itself to be co-opted by the RINOs in Congress? Why did the conservatives allow the Tea Party to become somnolent? And now, they expect the Roberts ruling to hand them back the Tea Party, without lifting a hand themselves.
Critics of Roberts say he succumbed to a flood of negative attack articles from liberals. But what did they do to give Roberts political cover? Nothing.
That’s the problem. The GOP want to repeal Obamacare. But they have not a hope in hell without replicating the power Obama had in 2009. That is, the White House, sure. The House of Representatives, sure. But the Senate? Where is the game plan to beat a Dem filibuster on repeal?
Obama has a one-point plan – win 270 electoral college votes and he will sell anything that is not nailed down to get to that number. He is not obsessed about getting 53% again.
The GOP also has a one-point plan – repeal Obamacare. Do they think this faint hope is enough. Which is more pressing – to expose Obama’s lie about his mother’s death bed insurance problems OR to expose the horror that is Julia?
That’s the root problem. Nobody is talking tough love to the Republicans. God helps those who help themselves. The Republicans haven’t (yet) helped anyone.
Just to add to my take on Obama’s 270 strategy. After the Hispanic amnesty and the Roberts ruling, Obama’s national RCP average ticked up to some plus 3.8%. Now, it’s down to some 2.6%. Obviously, Obama has made no gains on the national poll.
Yet, look at the Intrade odds that RCP provides. It keeps ticking up, now upto 50. What is Intrade? These are guys who bet real money, as opposed to those who write comments on blogs. Even as Obama slides on the national poll, the money guys are betting he’s gonna get the 270.
Is Romney watching this?
Which makes 53% of the voters power sluts.
In some of my less than temperate diatribes over the years, I point out that your slavery and ultimate destruction is what they’re after. Every single thing that is pushed by the left has a diabolical motive, even the most seemingly benign. Treating them like we are having a slight disagreement as to methods is like treating a lion as a dinner guest. He may be there to eat, but he’s not eatin’ what you’re eatin’.
Destroy them at every opportunity. Don’t agree with them on one single thing. If they say the sun rose this morning, get independent verification at once!
In other news, I’m SHOCKED to hear that Anderson Cooper is gay! I’d never have suspected it.
In still other news, pigs still don’t fly. Unless they’re shot from a cannon.
Do you suppose Anderson Cooper has ever been shot from a cannon?
Just askin’. Don’ mean nuthin’ by it.
Mr. Klavan, I have always found your columns thought provoking and insightful, this one included. Nevertheless, I take exception to your description of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion as “nonsensical.”. I must ask, did you read the entire opinion? Can you point to the statements contained in the opinion that are nonsensical? I did read the entire opinion, as well as all of the other opinions and having done so,I found it to be very carefully reasoned. The dissent of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito raised some serious issues with opinion of the Chief Justice, but it did not find fatal flaws. Reasonable people may disagree as to which side had the better argument on the point of contention between these two opinions, namely whether or not the individual mandate was a constitutiionally imposed tax, but this is too difficult an issue to dismiss either view. Based upon my review of the opinions, I think that the Chief Justice took his duty under the Constitution very seriously and decided on the basis of logic and principle. I do not think that it is fair, or correct, to describe his opinion as nonsensical, although I am open to being persuaded otherwise if you, or any of those commenting here, can identify points in the Chief Justice”s opinion that do not make sense.
‘
I think the point of Mr. Klavan is clear. He states, “we have Obamacare which, as Chief Justice John Roberts has explained to us, grants the government the right to tax us for not buying what it wants us to buy.” The arguments may logical and concise, but the conclusion is nonsensical because there is no way the orignial intent of the constitution was to grant the federal government this much power.
The constitution limits federal power those items specifically granted to the federal government. All other power is reserved for the states or the people. If you look at the sections on taxes, it states specific purposes for which taxes may be levied. A tax for refusing to buy health insurance is not on the list.
I do not think you are right about that. Article I section 8(1) says that Congress can impose taxes “to pay the Debts, and provide for the common “Defence” and general Welfare of the United States.” The question of how broadly to interpret general Welfare goes back to the Framers themselves. In any event, for several decades it has been interpreted broadly and since the U.S. is $16 trillion in debt one can argue that all money raised by taxes goes to keep the debt from going higher. The 16th Amendment, which provides that Congress may impose income taxes, does not contain any limitations on the purposes for which they can be levied, so once again we are left with the broad language of Article I section 8(1). You and Mr. Klavan may prefer a more narrow reading, but given that the broader reading has been the law for some time and was endorsed by Alexander Hamilton at the time the Constitution was adopted, there is no basis to say that it is “nonsensical” or that there is “no way” that it was the original intent to give the federal government broad powers to levy taxes.
No, the point Mr Klavan makes is not clear. In fact, he’s being deliberately obtuse. At no point does Chief Roberts make the case that, sui generis, Congress has the Constitutional permission to tax ‘inactivity’. Agreed, Roberts used convoluted and, perhaps, cowardly argument to find the mandate constitutional, if and only if, it is read as a tax. But he was careful enough to limit this lax argument to the mandate, and only the mandate. (Don’t write Chief Roberts off yet).
Republicans as always want an easy victory. They are upset that Chief Roberts did not make their task easier. However, the ball is firmly in Romney’s court now. The opponent has returned serve and it’s his turn to find the winning pass.
But, the only way Obama got the law onto the books is by lying. And, no one, not the GOP or the Tea Party had the power to stop the lie. Evrerybody, from Pelosi onwards, knew it was a lie.
Repealing Obamacare is the job of today’s conservatives. But tomorrow, whenever the liberals want to pick your pocket to finance some new wet dream, (and you can bet your sweet batootie they’ll find a few), they won’t get away with calling it a penalty under some Commerce-Shommerce Law. They’ll have to call it a tax in the revenue portion of any bill. How many Dems are there with the balls to do that? Point is, do the Republicans have the requisite cojones to stop that?
Obamacare is not the end. How can it be, when from the time of the Founders, America has been slowly but steadily losing individual freedeoms, brick by brick? Who stands athwart two centuries of stealth socialism? Romney? Or, John Doe?
Excellent article Mr. Klavan, one of your best. I feel you held Ms. Pelosi’s intelligence in too high an esteem by referring to her only as a “blithering leftist idiot”. Something like “brain numbed leftist compounded with mollusk like reasoning power” seems to closer approximate the truth. (No offense to mollusks intended of course.)
Once again this brings to mind something I ran across a few years ago:
Whenever someone is touting a new, must-have, “good for you” government service, just remember that “service” is also the same word used to describe what the bull does to the cow.
Moooo….
The founders of the Democratic party were all owners of other human beings or supporters of that practice. They failed to prevail in the court of opinion and the voting booth. They then fought and lost a war to preserve that practice and culture.
Post war, they retrenched and began to use that accustomed structure to rebuild the Democratic party. Through today, Democrats, like their ancestors, have used violence where possible and intimidation where necessary. They have always encouraged the same structure, language, and mentality as the plantation and, once established, the maintenance of that structure.
For hundreds of years, the plantation system had people in definite roles such as the master class, house servants, field hands, and those unfortunates who were labelled as rebellious or unmanageable property (trash).
Outside the plantation, but integral to southern culture, were non-plantation middle class whites who were respected citizens that supported or used the plantation system. Lastly were the lower class whites, (“poor whites” or “white trash” or “crackers”) who might not own another person and who hired out to labor or had small farms. These wretches were generally looked down upon by masters, servants, field hands, and the upstanding white folk alike.
Today, the masters, house servants, field hands, and upstanding white folk are those good Democrats who contribute to the continuing plantation racial mentality. Listen closely, they often engage in the same racial rhetoric as the plantation culture did through it’s demise and redemption by the Democratic party.
In heated arguments they may actually call an opponent of theirs trash, white trash or cracker depending on who they are talking about. Each of these words are racially charged insults. RINOs are often given honorary status as upstanding citizens unless they cross the plantation mentality at which time they revert to being “crackers.”
The founders and those who maintained the Democrat party were most comfortable with this now dead paradigm. You say, surely this is silly, but look at the language and mannerisms of today’s racial party banner carriers, To understand today’s Democratic party one must understand it is the direct product of it’s racist past.
I have one disagreement with you, Klavan. I guess I really am a mean conservative. I really don’t care if most leftists keep their liberty because they really do seem to want to surrender it, and if that’s what they think will make them happy, I’m all about letting them pursue happiness and stuff. BUT, where I’m the mean conservative, is that I know very good and well that in order for them to sacrifice their liberty, they also have to offer mine up on their alter. And, that I am simply not willing to let them do. Not without a fight. You can sacrifice your own, but leave mine alone. Unfortunately, they simply won’t move to any other country of the world to make that happen. They simply keep trying to turn this country into that soft tyranny and take away my liberty in the process.
Well said, though to the hoards of liberal lemmings, the core principles of freedom are all just Greek or Chinese to them.
Devastating video. Masterful.
Roberts was always a leftist – when being vetted for his current job, it came out that his written opinion has always been that:
“There are no real individual citizen’s human rights, beyone those which the state assigns to us. Whee!”
People (Bush The Younger, for instance) should have paid closer attention then, as now.
Loved the video – it proves: “It takes a village to raise an idiot!”
Obama family cancels summer vacation to Martha’s Vineyard Published: 11:26 AM 07/03/2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/obama-family-cancels-summer-vacation-to-marthas-vineyard/#ixzz1zap1KJo1
The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) By James March 15, 2012
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
Congress Looking Happy to Reauthorize Broad, Secret Spying Powers By David Kravets May 31, 2012
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/category/surveillance/
Published on May 21, 2012 NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain – David Seaman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lraUc8VnLNI
Fact Sheet – Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) For Immediate Release December 1, 2010 http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287
only two things can keep [gov't lust for power] within proper bounds: moral principles and fear of consequences. And frankly, I’m not too sure about moral principles.
Very true and, the more you think about the implications, very unsettling.
Moral principles are still commonplace, at least where they haven’t been ‘educated’ out, but rarer by the day within the gov’t and the entire public sector.
‘Fear of consequences’ involves far more than the ballot box and the soap box, or even prosecution of corruption in all its forms. Several of the SC justices are likely well aware of the risks, but plainly most are not. We’re on the road to the most dire solutions of all, dissolution and/or civil war. Sadly, not so much the wages of sin as the price for fiddling around, like Nero, and looking down the wrong end of the telescope, like Nelson.
What part of ‘unacceptable’ does the left not understand?
And why do they expect to walk away unharmed?
And how do they believe they can win?
U.S. drone ‘hijackings’ raise security concerns University of Texas professor and grad students manipulate unmanned crafts’ flight paths. One exercise is done with DHS. Thousands of civilian drones are destined for U.S. skies.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57466445-83/u.s-drone-hijackings-raise-security-concerns/