Friday, February 19, 2016

Why Pope Francis Is Correct About Donald Trump

Maybe this guy knows more about the Bible and about what Jesus said than Donald J. Trump. Of course Trump doesn't think so, but his dispute with Francis gives us an insight into one of Trump's shortcomings: an inability or unwillingness to imagine a critic might just be right, especially when that critic is actually doing the job he is supposed to do. Unlike what so many alleged Christians imagine, the Pope is simply following the teachings of Jesus Christ when he points out that Donald Trump's policies are in many ways un-Christian.
Yesterday, as you may know, Pope Francis entered the political fray in the USA, commenting about the policy objectives expressed by Republican candidate Donald J. Trump. The Pope explained that Trump's vision of excluding millions of immigrants based on their ethnicity or religion is not Christian.

Francis said:
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel."
Trump took little time in replying, basically accusing Francis of being un-Christian in calling Trump un-Christian. Don't they have that rule about not judging people after all?

Trump said:
"For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith."
Trump here seems to be invoking  the alleged rule about questioning or judging another Christian's faith.

Of course, what that rule is about is taking upon oneself to judge the merits of any one person's chances of getting into heaven. You just never know what of lout God may decide to save—and it isn't for you to know because you aren't God.

But nowhere in the teachings of Jesus does he indicate that we are to evade judging the teachings people espouse. If an alleged Christian teaches us to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught, is that teaching really Christian, or is it something falsely posing as Christian?

And more to the point, does Jesus talk explicitly about the situation in question: i.e., Trump's building a wall—or walls really, because there will be real walls and legal barriers to entry that act like walls—perpetrated against entire peoples on the basis of their ethnicity and religion?

In Luke 10, Jesus is confronted by—what else, a lawyer—who asks him a question:
"Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
This is the answer Jesus gave:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Note especially the last bit—the identification of oneself with one's neighbor. But the lawyer, being a lawyer, was interested in what exactly Jesus meant in any fine print. And the lawyer asked Jesus:
"And who is my neighbour?"
Good question. Because if somebody isn't your neighbor, you don't have to love that person as you would yourself, do you?

Jesus responded at this point with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Jesus explains that a Jew traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked along the way by thieves, who stole all he had, stripped him naked, and left him beaten and bleeding on the road.

A number of people pass by the bloody body of the man, including a Jewish priest, and one of the priestly assistants of the tribe of Levi. In other words, fellow Jews, supposedly people trained in a higher form of ethical understanding than the average person, and they left the man to die.

Finally, a man of the tribe of Samaria, usually depicted as "other" by the Jews, because their religion was different, and often they were portrayed as enemies, passed by the body of the beaten Jew. Jesus tells us:
"But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee."
And then Jesus asked the lawyer:
"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"
And the lawyer replied:
"He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."
News flash to Donald Trump—you're not doing likewise, pal.

Building walls to keep out others, instead of showing mercy to others as we would to ourselves, is pointedly not Christian. So says Jesus Christ, whom Donald J. Trump apparently thinks is a lousy religious founder.

This is the point Pope Francis was making, that Trump really seemed to be confused about what being a Christian was all about. Well, lots of alleged Christians are confused about that. And a lot of those people are going to vote for Donald J. Trump it seems.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Apple’s Tim Cook Warns Obama’s FBI Is Trying To “Backdoor” iPhone Security Protection

Apple CEO, Tim Cook, warns Apple customers, and Americans in general, that Obama's FBI is out of control, seeking to circumvent security protections put into iPhones and other Apple products in reaction to customer demands, following the revelations that Bush and Obama regimes regularly collected data from phones and computers of all Americans. Now, Obama's regime seeks to strike back against Apple and other companies, demanding that the increased encryption and security protections added over the last few years be made once again vulnerable to government intrusions. As Apple and other companies have argued, in addition to the risk of government abuses of power presented by creating backdoors to smartphone and computer security, the intentional vulnerabilities make it easier for hackers to gain access to the devices as well.
In “A Message to our Customers”, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, pushed back against Barack Obama’s FBI, which is demanding, through a court order, that Apple provide the federal government with a “backdoor” to the iPhone’s operating system security. This demand comes in relation to the FBI investigation into last December’s San Bernardino terrorist case.

Cook warned:
“Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”
Cook indicated the FBI is really looking to add a backdoor to enable the feds to bypass iPhone security protection:

“The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

The language of the court document puts it this way, explaining specifically what Apple is being ordered to do by Obama’s government:
“Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcode to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE; and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcode to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.”
Maybe more concerning than the specific technical demands by the government in this matter, is the legal method the court is employing to justify the FBI’s demand to Apple. Cook, describing this method as “A Dangerous Precedent”, says:
“Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority…the implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”
Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is somehow different from George W. Bush when it comes to anti-Constitutional contempt for the freedom and privacy of American citizens, need only examine the plentiful and plain evidence to the contrary, including this particularly egregious attempt by the FBI to set up a standing power to infringe the Fourth Amendment. That is in addition to the threat posed from widespread hacking by Apple creating an intentional security vulnerability in its products.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Sanders Explains Why Trump Is Winning And Bernie Is Boring

RCP poll average for Democratic campaign opponents. Note that Bernie got very little bump from Biden dropping out. And, one thing is very clear, as voters got a chance to see Bernie Sanders talking alongside Hillary Clinton in the Democratic debates, they chose Clinton. Now, if Bernie cannot even outsmart Hillary, who often seems distracted by all the glitter of being herself, then how would he have any chance against Donald Trump, whom Bernie has just admitted possesses what it take—smarts—to be embraced and promoted by the mainstream media? In the end, and really all along the way, Bernie Sanders is just a boring old man, saying affirming (but given GOP congressional power, utterly unrealistic) things to an audience of whining babies, many of whom have threatened to stay home and elect Donald Trump if "the Bern" loses to Clinton.
Let's imagine for a moment what a Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders presidential campaign might look like:

Trump would of course be promoting American progress and success and by this Trump would mean that he intends to do to America what he has always done—build another, even bigger, gaudy tower with his name plastered on it. And oh, by the way, yes that means that dangerous park space across from Trump's America, the space the poor, brown, people played in, will have to be bulldozed. In the other corner, actually down on a street corner, standing alongside 20 or 30 supporters, Bernie Sanders would be holding up a little placard denouncing Trump as being a mean-hearted, greedy, racist land baron who would not care about the working class...blah, blah, blah. And then, just when you think a few people might be listening to Bernie about this complaint, Trump steps in to co-opt Bernie's argument. Trump announces that indeed, he will be building another wonderful monstrosity with his name on it, and in addition he will be building the most wonderful new park space—it's gonna be HUGE!—and just the kind of place parents and kids will love!

Bernie releases a statement supporting the building of a new park. And Trump wins. Only later do we find out, and by that time nobody remembers or cares about the tiny park debate anyway, that Trump is building the really huge park space on top of the new tower to be enjoyed only by the richest tenants and their families.

And that's business and politics in America.

And the thing is, Bernie Sanders knows this. It is why he has taken lately to sounding almost like he is working for Trump's campaign. Sanders says he's appealing to the same voters as Trump. And Sanders explained just the other day why Trump is winning, and Bernie isn't. Asked by CNN's Chris Cuomo why Trump was so popular and so successful in his campaign, Sanders, accusing the media of being shills for Trump, said:
“Well, Chris, you’re gonna have to ask the media precisely why. I mean Trump is a smart guy. He’s a media guy. He ran, you know, he did a TV show. I’ll give you one example. Alright. A recent study showed that on ABC Evening News, Trump over a period of time got 81 minutes of time. Bernie Sanders got 20 seconds. Now you tell me why. And I think it has to do with the fact that Trump is very smart. He knows that media is not so interested in the serious issues facing this country. They love bombastic remarks. They love silly remarks. If he says that somebody is sweating—my god, that is a major story and all that silly business, the personal attacks, that kind of works. So, I think this is more an indictment of the media actually than it is of Trump.”
Seriously, if you're running for office, for the highest and most powerful office in the world, you don't explain your opponent's success as a product of what?—Trump being a "very smart" guy. And so where does that leave Bernie then? Effectively, that implies Bernie isn't the very smart guy, which goes along with the fact Bernie is such a horrible media figure or political product.

My answer to Bernie Sanders about why Donald Trump gets media time and Bernie gets ignored is pretty basic:

Because you’re fucking boring, Bernie!

You're about as telegenic as a pile of nasty old cardboard some hobos slept under. You don’t smile. You don’t speak up. You speak down to people because you figure they have to be stupid—which is correct—but jeez, asshole, you're peddling a product to them, you know? And nobody likes you anyway, you cantankerous old coot. Clear?

Now, having said that, I'm not suggesting for a moment that people should vote for Trump instead. And I have admitted for a long time that having the option—really the obligation—to vote for dreary Hillary is hardly a choice. But it is an obligation because of the ghastly Republican alternatives.

If anything, I find Bernie's comments, given that he seems definitely headed for defeat against Clinton, as a kind of endorsement of the likely GOP candidate. And that, combined with Sanders' team having pilfered Clinton's supporter list does call into question whether Sanders is running for a cause, or like his new best very intelligent friend, just for himself.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

New York Times Carpet Bombs The Truth—Once Again

B-52 drops large array of bombs on Vietnam during Operation Arc Light, 1965.
If you really hate, and I mean totally despise, the truth, you’re an ideal customer to get your news and especially your opinions from the war-mongering newspaper, the New York Times.

Now, at this point, after writing something like that, I will be regaled with charges I am yet another right-wing looney, who hates the MSM. No, I am not right-wing, nor left-wing, nor a vile centrist, and while I might be as looney as the next American (looney being a defining character trait of USA’uns), my main interest is in looking for whatever facts we can discern underlying and often contradicting the junk peddled as facts in MSM slop.

Today’s example is a NYT editorial entitled “Ted ‘Carpet-Bomb’ Cruz”. In this opinion piece, the Times’ editors argue that Ted Cruz is just another ignorant chickenhawk, who likes to bluster about how with himself as POTUS, America will be militarily strong, while actually the blusterer (almost always a conservative flavor) knows almost nothing about military power and its tools of engagement.

As the Times points out:
"Anyone with any understanding of military strategy knows that “carpet-bombing” is a term used by amateurs trying to sound tough."
Now, I can tell you from a lot of personal experience with this, that whenever you see a journalist preface their statement with "ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING" or something similar, you should be concerned about the strong likelihood that journalist is generalizing about something they know nothing about whatsoever.

Another sign this might be the case is if the journalist then employs some kind of expert to allegedly make their case for them, which the Times did (see below for this). Often, the expert will be found to have either wildly misstated the facts—and strangely the journalist never checks this with other experts or just Wikipedia or something—or to have been so creatively quoted by the journalist as to make a point they never in fact argued.

Remember this as we go along here.

The key evidence the Times editors use to prosecute Cruz as a military amateur is his recent statement about how he would like to dispatch Islamic State:
“We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion.”
Here is Cruz’s statement in context:
“Instead we will have a president who will make clear we will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark. But we’re going to find out. And we are going to make abundantly clear to any militant on the face of the planet that if you go and join ISIS, if you wage jihad against the United States of America, and try to murder innocent Americans, you are signing your death warrant.”
Now, there is a lot there to unpack, chiefly for example that telling jihadists they are signing their death warrants by attacking the USA is not actually likely to dissuade militants from signing up to ISIS or Islamic State. And while carpet bombing Islamic State strongholds will likely be very satisfying to lots of Americans, who love to watch poor Muslims blow the fuck up, it is also very likely to result in the deaths of lots of collaterals (or as Americans like to call them: “collaborators” ), and then further result in the recruitment of lots more terrorists.

So, let us be clear, Ted Cruz’s war-speak, AKA silly jingoism, is not the basis of an effective strategy for winning a war against Islamic State, or jihadism in general. I’m pretty sure Cruz is knows this too. After all, right now, he’s shown the intelligence to so far outmaneuver the alleged smart-guy in the Republican campaign, Donald Trump.

On the other hand, that point about Cruz’s bluster could have been simply made by just letting Ted speak, especially in context. Instead, the Times decided to focus on the term “carpet bomb”, to make a case that Cruz did not understand the term, and to further argue that it was un-American to even suggest such a tactic should be employed or has ever been employed by the United States military.

After all, slaughtering lots of people like fleas in a carpet just isn’t American—is it?

The Times produced this quotation to help make that case, offered by what the editors claimed was a chuckling “Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a military historian and former commandant of the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.”:
“That’s just another one of those phrases that people with no military experience throw around…America has never carpet-bombed anyone at any time because that’s not our doctrine.”
The Times did not at that point fact-check that statement, because the purpose of providing the quotation was to authorize the Times’ claim that employing the term “carpet-bomb” was just an ignorant and un-American thing for Cruz to do.

Instead, the Times' editors claimed the following:
“The only thing close to “carpet-bombing” was Operation Arc Light in 1965, in which two or three B-52 Stratofortresses bombed sections of Vietnam to support tactical operations on the ground, not to flatten the place.”
So there, Ted Cruz, you must be wrong!

But, what if the Times just told you a pile of crap? Could that be a possibility?

Well, let’s see. What would most of us do if we wanted to fact-check a claim. Might we start with Wikipedia’s article on carpet bombing? According to that, there is a little more to the tale of carpet bombing in the Vietnam War than General Scales or the Times wanted to admit:
“The first combat mission, Operation Arc Light, was flown by B-52Fs on 18 June 1965, when 30 bombers of the 9th and 441st Bombardment Squadrons struck a communist stronghold near the Bến Cát District in South Vietnam. The first wave of bombers arrived too early at a designated rendezvous point, and while maneuvering to maintain station, two B-52s collided, which resulted in the loss of both bombers and eight crewmen. The remaining bombers, minus one more that turned back due to mechanical problems, continued toward the target.” 
So, in this version of Operation Arc Light, THREE bombers turned back. In the Times version, two or three bombers actually participated in the operation. Now, what happened?

Again, Wikipedia:
“Twenty-seven Stratofortresses dropped on a one-mile by two-mile target box from between 19,000 and 22,000 feet, a little more than 50% of the bombs falling within the target zone.”
And of course, that is just in Vietnam, which had many such carpet-bombing raids.

In addition, as General Scales ought to know, carpet bombing, or saturation bombing, was much used in World War II by all sides, but particularly by the Allies as the war advanced, and the Allies repeatedly struck, and thoroughly destroyed, large landscapes of German and Japanese industrial production.

So, whatever you might say about Ted Cruz, he wasn’t just inventing or repeating a false notion that carpet bombing is an acceptable brand of American war policy.

Readers must always be aware that the New York Times exists largely to promote and protect the state and its perpetrators, such as the US military, from any effective criticism. And in doing this, even while attacking people, such as Cruz, who would seem to be a natural ally of the Times, since he also is a big fan of the US military, the Times will exploit and often distort the facts to make its case.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Americans Told By Egghead To "Manage" Their Terror To Win War

Poor Americans trapped in the prison of fear provoked by acts of terror. If only they could be freed from that, then maybe, Professor Stern tells us in a new NY Times op-ed, "we" could win the war on terror. All you have to do is manage your terror—in yourself—by looking up and getting divine with it.
And then, just in case you were in doubt about whose responsibility it is to win the war on nouns (terror, terrorism, extremism, badism in any form), kindly (and aptly named) Professor Stern reminds us that when it comes to the wars, the real responsibility for winning is not that of our leaders or our fighters or our "intelligence" agents, it is YOUR fault if we lose:

"If we are to prevail in the war on terrorism, we need to remember that the freedoms we aspire to come with great responsibilities. And these responsibilities involve not just fighting terrorists, but also managing our own terror."

"aspire to"—code for you don't really have freedoms—because that threatens the security of an unfree state, like we didn't already know that.

By managing your terror, Professor Stern means remembering that the "Divine" (which you have an equal-opportunity-obligation to worship in your own way in the USA) will make you feel better about dying and stuff. That way, maybe you won't want to go slaughter your Muslim neighbors for seeming very dangerous to you, what with all the Jihad going around you know.

Professor Stern tells us that she is well placed to understand the fears Americans feel about the threat of terrorist attacks:
"In many years of studying this subject, I have come to understand that a mass shooting or terrorist attack evokes a powerful sense of dread."
Of course, Professor Stern might have just watched some news video and read articles about—or better yet lived through—9/11 and maybe she could have figured out the "sense of dread" without having to spend years on a study of it.

Academe has arrived DOA at the think-tank. It also has failed the nation by serving the unbelievably idiotic fascism destroying it.

Seriously, this is what all loser regimes always do at the brink of losing—blame anybody but themselves.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Ben Carson’s Excellent Point About Rabid Dogs—And Republicans

The moment when Donald Trump went full-frontal Nazi, noting he will employ "a lot of systems" to track Muslims, and presumably all the other "OTHERS" Trump decides are potentially dangerous to the profoundly well-educated crew making up Trump's base. A message from one of these supporters can be see in the middle image, a detail of a photo taken a few weeks ago of an Austin, Texas bus-stop bench, where an endorsement inspired by Trump's hate-mongering against Hispanics can be seen scrawled out in its imbecilic glory. Be very afraid of "The invation" of the Trumpublicans!—or any other brand of Republican.
It is hard to keep track of all the hate-mongering idiocy—one might call it “rabid” idiocy—spewing from the Republican candidates in the presidential primary campaign.

After all, Donald Trump declared war on Hispanics as a class and a potential threat early on, and has had no problem expanding that attack on the “OTHER” to include the GOP’s new, favorite, target of hatred, Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. The vast majority of Syrian refugees are escaping the horrible violence of what is certainly the worst current hellhole on Earth, and the terrible brutality of, among other players in that game of death, Islamic State.

You might think that Americans, even the nutty right-wing version, would have some sympathy for the plight of these victims. 

Nope. Not when there are political points to be scored in Republican nutland by moving ever closer to establishing true Nazi-style values in the GOP.

Donald Trump for example, on Thursday made it quite explicit where he is coming from on the need to honor and mimic Nazi population management, regarding Muslims in the USA. Asked if he would be interested in creating national databases of Muslims “living in the US to protect the country from terrorism”, Trump said:
There should be a lot of systems beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Trump claimed this was the way in which he would establish “good management” in the US government’s operations.

And one can easily see how this would soon be expanded to include all the other threatening classes of human beings Trump and his white imperium decide need to be specially suspected and monitored and perhaps locked up for their own good in concentration camps. Welcome to Auschwitz, Hispanics.

Meanwhile, Ben Carson, carving out his own Nazi space, had earlier on Thursday said the following about the need to watch out for what he called “rabid dogs”, in other words Syrian refugees who might go “radical” (AKA “terrorist”):
If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog.
In other words, “that dog” meaning Syrian refugees should not just be assumed to be OK. That would be too dangerous. After all, some crazy people might get into the USA if you were accepting and merciful and things like that.

Well, absolutely right…wing…nut. If there is some rabid dog wondering around, people really should be very wary of it and absolutely be on guard to not embrace it, or anything it might bark out as a campaign slogan or a threatened policy if it should be elected.

Yes, rabid dogs are bad things. 

Now, the only question for the American people—the question that has become the central one in judging the quality of the political process in the USA: who are the rabid dogs in American politics? Are they really Muslims, or Mexicans? Or might they just be that unbelievably ignorant, hateful, and just plain stupid pack of mad dogs who represent the best and brightest of the Republican Party?

Monday, November 16, 2015

George W. Bush And His Pals Killed Liberty With Crazy Terror Wars

Politico has declared this guy, Michael Morell, former deputy spy-master at CIA, to be the sharpest critic of US anti-Islamic-State policy. Morell argues it is time to have the anti-Snowden debate in America, by which Morell means one defined by fear of another Paris-style attack, and so one enabling the US government to have complete control of encryption keys employed by commercial companies. The attack-clampdown process is an essential ingredient of the Bush-style erasure of American liberty.
Dubya didn’t do it all alone. 

He had lots of accomplices, from jackasses like US Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who infamously asked what good your stupid civil liberties were if you were dead—Patrick Henry already answered that long ago—to craven (or just dumb?) politicians like Hillary Clinton (and lots of Democrats), who voted to plunge the world and not just America into Iraq’s long death dance.

You think it was just Islamic State that killed a bunch of rich French in Paris a few nights ago? Nope, American taxpayers helped out too, by carving out with blood and the stupidest kind of vengeance plenty of hate-space for Islamic State to be born and to flourish.

And as the clampdown came on poor collateral Muslims all over the Middle East and the world, so did it come to the liberties of the allegedly free peoples of the West. So anxiously did Americans rush to the alter to worship the vain, hideously foolish, alter of George W. Bush and his evildoers, they had no problem surrendering all their meaningful liberties to anti-Constitutional trash-laws like the ironically-titled Patriot Act.

So horrible was George W. Bush’s assault on the very core of what Americans had thought they believed in, that in 2008 voters actually elected a black man to be president! Now that’s some change, people hopefully chanted, as Barack Obama came into power. Again, hope was smashed by the cynical reality of the state. Whatever Obama might have believed about significantly changing things, he kowtowed to power, and basically did things Bush-style, continuing and even expanding massive, and Constitution-destroying, invasions of privacy that made a complete joke of the idea of liberty. 

Only when Edward Snowden took up the mantle of latter-day patriot, standing up to the entire power of the United States government, which no doubt would love to assassinate Snowden, did the world learn of the extent of the crimes of the Bush-Obama tag-team of tyranny. 

Even American corporations responded to these revelations, finally made public, by demanding that government should not have the power to invade their most sacred investments—the products they peddle for profit! Companies like Apple vowed they would redesign their products to lock out the NSA. Encryption that the governments of the world could not break became the new, best, way to protect the remnants of liberty.

Of course, the governments of the world were not going to accept that outrage against their power. One by one, attack after attack, terrorists (who might as well be on the payrolls of the state security agencies), argued in favor of erasing privacy altogether and enabling the establishment of a great—oh what should we call it?—Big Brother of protection. 

After all, the Inner Parties demanded: what good are your rights if you are dead?

Patrick Henry would have an answer and in these dark, last days of liberty, he would be in an American prison—or assassinated by the American government.

On Sunday, ex-CIA deputy chief, Michael Morell, articulated the government's argument against liberty:
I think what we are going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult if not impossible for governments to break, and the producers of which, don’t produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages...So, we need to have a public debate about this. We have, in a sense, had a public debate. That debate was defined by Edward Snowden, right, and the concern about privacy. I think we’re now going to have another debate about that. It’s going to be defined by what happened in Paris.
"Defined by Paris" means of course, tyranny enabled once again by widespread panic at the idea that liberty has enabled death and mayhem at the hands of the terrorists.

But once again, a reasoned response to this will ask—but which terrorists? And where is this terrorism HQ truly located? Raqqa? Or Washington DC? And is liberty the real problem here? Or insanely self-destructive government policy?