Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
This is just effing scary... 27% of Americans following NSA story very closely. 35% not following closely at all... Most Americans are okay with the government snooping into their private lives? WHY???
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: 'From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.'"
"There is all the difference in the world, however, between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent -- William Graham Sumner's famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged -- but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty."
Anytime that you see an 'on the street' interview about political issues, you will be astounded as to how little the average person knows.
These are the 'useful idiots' that this administration depends upon for their endorsement....
Talk radio is the champion of our First amendment right, and Fox News is the cable's champion.
FOX News slaughters the rest, and they are the only one that doesn't lip-synch the DNC talking points. That can only mean that the majority of people who seek their news on cable are not going to the stations that enable this administration. If you were correct, they would all be moving towards the bigger audience for the bottom line.
But they don't. They have an ideological agenda no less devoted than the West Wing...and they are willing to forgo profits over message.
What I recall was Beck warning the WH not to white wash the Islamic connection when the two suspects were identified.
Beck never, in any of the 16:15 minutes, claims that the government played a hand in the bombing.
What he says in the segment is that the declared third person of interest...the Saudi national in the hospital...went from the status of known terrorist, to the status of immediate deportation to Saudi Arabia practically overnight. This happened before our intelligence departments could question him...and right after a Saudi diplomat met with Obama at the White House.
Bottom line: Beck says just what I remembered him to have said, that the White House was protecting this Saudi national from being linked to the crime. And that the White House was making an effort to minimize the Islamic connection.
No where does Beck accuse our government with the event itself.
Watch it for yourself....
Rush actually said he thought the Boston bombings were an inside job? I'd go with opportunists to try out heavy handed population controls and management, but designed by the WH? doubtful at best
But if that is what you need to justify your radio choices, more power to you.
And if you think that Rand would let this Republic go to Hades, just to rebuke Beck being a Mormon, then you don't understand her political worldview. Rush, and Beck, are both self made successful 'producers', and offer the other side of the political debate.
You left FOX out? Or were you saving them for another post....
All of the information is out there and the masses are still oblivious to their fate. Apathy at its worst/best?
Jay does it for the comedy, and Bill does it to make a sad point. And that point couldn't be any more telling as to why we are where we are.
There was a point where the Founding Fathers debated as to limiting the vote to property owners. Their reasoning was sound, but fell prey to a more eclectic proposal. We are witnessing the result of that decision....
I wonder if any Gulch proponents here could equate 'property ownership' to being a producer?
I could.
I know that the Founding Fathers gave a huge leeway for the individual states to determine their own voting rules, and attempted to not centralize it in Washington.
I'm going to do some digging...!
Another example - look at how the same subgroup of Americans view firearm ownership. Most either abhorr them or look at them as a scary talisman of power and awe, requiring numerous permissions of gov to even look upon, let alone touch. And to own?? Those who own a firearm are considered anti-social dangerous criminals...
Shall I add that they've been fed the dot gov socialist mind-menu via broadcast since at least the 1970's, if not before. They know kids watch 6 hours of TV a day; why not use that 6 hours to make compliant subjects of the future... kind of like the programming in Brave New World...
Everything else, of course, is fair game. As long as the Sheeple never find out about it.
The Nevada Data Center is supposed to eventually house the power to brute-force decrypt HTTPS en-masse (from, say a Tier 1 pipe - they should be able to do the same for AES-256, in the case of data-at-rest and file-level stuff). Until then, they could, of course, just store all raw network data from the NAPs (Network Access Points - straight from the biggest ISPs) until they get the clock cycles to retroactively plow through it all. I think real-time decryption of HTTPS at this point requires focusing on a specific site ("target") of interest.
Of course, this would be an excellent site to target, if one's intent was to identify and track possible future subversives... ;-)
This comment almost sounds like an attempt to intimidate us into paranoid 'silence'.
What say you? Did you have a good reason to remind us that we are being 'watched'? Who benefits if even one member decides to hold back their opinion?
Your 'boss'?