National Security versus Privacy - the difference now.

Everyone has heard the quote "they who can give up essential freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither", written by Benjamin Fanklin in 1775.  In some ways he is right, but in today's society, must of us are not aware of the essential freedoms that we are losing.   I also propose that the erosion of our rights is in proportion to the erosion of our society as a whole, which i will explain more.  For those that don't remember social studies, let us review:

1st ammendment- freedom of speech and press, rights to assemble.  Is your speech really free when it is monitored by your government?  Does the press have this right when they are bullied by the government?   Remember when the White House declared Fox News not news?  Maybe you agree, but not the point.  Allow this precedent and the next White House may do the same to MSNBC or ABC News or CNN.  The press and news is free to have opinions also, they are not state run or monopolistic.  People can choose their news and hence, their opinion.  The government does not have the power to limit our news consumption.  Do not let it!

2nd amendment - right to keep and bear arms.  Remember the distinction here is to both keep them and bear them.  Gun rights have been under assault for a long time.  Before anyone calls me an NRA mouthpiece you should know, I do not own a gun of any kind.  Have never owned a gun, expect for a .22 single shot rifle that I inherited for a few months before I sold it at a yard sale.  Guns are not just for hunting and protecting your home.  It is a constitutional right to keep them.  Not to mention that 3D printed weapons stand to upend all gun legislation in the US.  Our hearts in the right places when we try to ban weapons but the true problem is people.  The erosion of the nuclear family has given rise to many broken families and homes, which has lead to a rise in crime.  Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to commit crime than those from traditional home.

3rd ammendment - protection from quartering troops.  I do not think the government intends to allow troops to squat in your home while at war or at peace, but this is designed to protect you from it anyways.  At least without your consent.

4th ammendment - protection from unreasonable search and seizures.  Along with free speech, the taking of our personal information from Internet servers worldwide, and data from phone records is unreasonable.  Yes, warrants were had in some cases, but we need to discuss the difference between the law this falls under and the intent.  The scope of the Verizon warrant was set to send all data, daily for millions of Americans.  This is clearly not the intent , nor within the scope of that law.  The rest of the disclosed seizures of private American data was warrant-less and even under the expanded Patriot act was never intended to target Americans en masse.

5th ammendment - rights to due process, double jeopardy, self incriminating and eminent domain.  The fact that the Obama Administration admitted to killing 4 Americans intentionally with drone strikes is the most disturbing information not cared about out there.  No matter the crime or circumstance, our constitution allows all citizens these basic rights.  A trial should have been done for these 4 in absentia, with all means to notify the alleged criminals of the trial date and location.  Once found guilty, the law would have met its demands and burdens and an order for execution could have been carried out legally.  Now with drones able to operate in the USA borders, and with government agencies taking action against political rivals in the US, we allow more illegal murders like this to continue.  Less discussed is our right now to incriminate ourselves, which is essentially waived when the government has all our private communications, even protected communication, at hand for use as they please.  Yes, safeguards and laws are in place to protect that data from being used maliciously.  Were there also safeguards and laws to prevent the IRS from targeting political rivals as well?

6th ammendment - trial by jury and the rights of the accused, speedy and public trial.  The above argument also holds her as well.

7th ammendment - civil trial by jury.  Which reminds me, why does congress try private companies in congress for the way it operates its own business?  If it is breaking a law, this should be handles by the proper courts and authorities.  If this is just some sort of civil proceeding that then levies a fine to be paid to the government, then is sounds like a civil suit to me, in disguise.

8th ammendment - no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment.  To which I have only one thing to say: Obama signed law in December 2011 that allows Indefinite Detention of terror suspects, even American citizens, without trial.

9th ammendment - you have other rights not listed here, they are protected too.  Our founders were smart in crafting this final version of the first 10 amendments.  They covered us (or tried to) from advancements that fundamentally changed our society and required new rights to appear.  The burden is then on the government to show that these common rights do not exist.  For example again, that our right to privacy in our personal email account exists is a common idea grants by the 9th ammendment.  Or as 3d printed weapons become more available, the government must prove our right to manufacture our own weapons (which is currently very legal) does not exist before they can ban such rights.

10th ammendment - power not specifically given to the federal government is retained by the States, or the people.  Therefore, if we didn't say the fed has his right in the constitution, they don't have it.  This is the crux of the argument of the Affordable Care Act, which was illegal as crafted and sold and passed.   The Supreme Court had to redefine the individual mandate as a tax to make it legal.

This has been going on for many years, but the complete disregard of our rights and the erosion of our freedoms has accelerated at an alarming rate in the past few years.  And this is only based on what we know is happening today.  Where do you see yourself, and your freedom, in another 10 years?  Or those of your children?   I have never been so temptd to become a libertarian.

There are places in this country where I can live with my family of 5 on a meager salary and do just fine.  If I budget properly, save, get the right amount of insurance - and stay away from the consumerism and greed.  How many people needed a cell phone 15 years ago?  How many people needed two cars 30 years ago?  How many people need smart phones, high speed Internet, to see every movie released?  We have a very poor idea of need vs. want around here.  Properly budgeted, fiscally conservative, debt abhorring, credit card hating (and probably boring) Americans are not falling behind in the middle class.  Our idea of what it means to be the middle class is outpacing where we are financially.

For example, did you know that average median household income is up 10% since 1980?  It was actually up almost 20% by the year 2000, but then the dot com and latest recession pretty much wiped those out.  In fact, inflation adjusted median household income has increased pretty much every year since 1945.  The charts the media is plastering everywhere?  That is the percentage of wealth, the distribution of it.  So the rich have more money that they did 30 years ago.  So do the middle class, just mess less more.  

But why is this a factor?  If the household income of everyone in America was a secret, and all you knew was that you were probably making more money today, even considering inflation, than your parents at this point in their life, would you be upset?  Would you be demanding the rich pay more taxes?  Also, your tax rates since 1980 has gone down as well.  Not only do you make more, you keep more in your pocket.  

But the US Government takes in much more money today than it did in 1980.  Not as a percentage of GDP, but what, really, does this matter?  The country is doing very well so obviously it costs more to run our government?  Does anyone really believe this?  Now I am not talking about population growth.  There is little correlation between pure population growth and economic growth, read up and see for yourself.  No, there is more money available via receipts that CAN be spent and as any historical graph of government spending will show you, we have spent more than we earn every year (save a maybe 6) in the past 70 years.  That money goes towards many different things, some good and some not so good. 

As it has been said, it doesn't matter how much you make, it matters how much you spend and what you have left over.  If you spend too much, you aren't wealthy.  No matter how much money you make.  The real economic crisis this country faces is simple family and personal budgeting and a realization of want vs. need.  

Which leads into my next topic: Is healthcare a want or a need?  What about shelter, food, transportation, a job and death/retirement benefits?