Thirty years does not seem a long enough time to radically transform a nation supposedly filled with freedom loving people; but that has happened. If questioned, American citizens will claim their freedoms and state emphatically they are free. These same people respond favorably to the federal government ostensibly acting to preserve -their lives, their property, and their safety, because they no longer trust their local governments or their neighbors.
They freely accept (and encourage) the federal government to do more on their behalf -mainly in the form of safety (and comfort) laws, and, in the form of "Free Stuff"; tax subsidies, tax exemptions, tax credits, health care, unearned SSI payouts, disability payouts, unemployment and welfare payouts - while endorsing higher taxes be placed upon their fellow citizens who earn more than they. Sustaining the Life Style Americans enjoy and increasing the number of material possessions they claim - was enough to sway a majority of Americans to voluntarily cede their priceless freedoms to the Leviathan. A handful of magic beans - was a much better deal.
US citizens of both parties will claim the the opposing party can be blamed for the grid-lock and disfunction in government. While it can be categorically proven Democrats in America are more blame worthy for the growth of government and the corresponding loss of freedoms; Republican members of government act little different than Democrat politicians when Republicans enjoy a majority. The reasons for Republican legislators and Presidents acting like Democrats are the same as the garden variety citizen's for accepting the theft of freedoms - protecting the Life Style they enjoy and avoiding criticism.
Both parties work to enlarge the size and scope of government.
The political parties in America assert there are meaningful and stark differences between them. This statement is a lie. While there are differences in the parties they use for elections - once in power they behave so similarly the stated differences become meaningless. Both parties lie. Both parties work to expand the size and scope of government.
The Republican Party - wishing to avoid bad press and lure "moderate, independent, minority voters" enact laws that continue and expand statutes favored by Democrats. The number of laws enacted by Republicans that stymie or end Democrat policies are so few as to be meaningless.
The majority of Republicans are perfectly happy being the minority party. They receive fewer perks and control fewer tax dollars, but they live a handsome and elegant life ensconced in the trappings of Capitol Hill.
When these Republicans make asinine comments contrary to the goals of the party's base - whom the Washington elites literally loathe - they drive those voters away - SEE the Romney election. The Tea Party is (in Obama's words) the enemy of these Republicans. The Tea Party wants the Republican Party returned to its Constitutional roots - or - to end the Republican Establishment's hold on power. They want their freedoms returned
I strongly suspect there are many Republicans who knew about the IRS investigating the Tea Party and approved of it. These Republican happily ignore the problems under their purview to avoid bad press and the accusations the press is found of making: racist, bigot, other...
The recent privacy intrusions made by government were initially created by Republicans when they held complete power - the G. W. Bush Presidency and Congress. Republicans are to blame for creating core and processes now used that claim the liberties of US citizens. However, the source of the risk remains - largely untouched - and free to plot attacks upon US citizens and property - and as the source for the loss of more liberties. Safety and preservation of property and liberties was never the objective of politicians. The 9/11 attacks was an opportunity to expand the size and scope of government - solely. That individual freedoms fell by the wayside, was a Necessary Expense to PROTECT Americans.
Every politician refused to target (profile) the problem - young men with a middle eastern heritage - AND - men between the ages of 17 and 40 who belong to the Muslim religion.
Additionally, foreign nationals, residing in the US, who travel must be included in the enhanced scrutiny - if safety is truly the goal. The US government must make a comprehensive list of potential terrorists and scrutinize the maximum number of people who conform to the lists' specifications (this includes targeting all young Muslim men) to contain the problem. This solution was never considered. Muslims and Blacks are used by Democrats to intimidate whites. They are literally the Terror Wing of the Democrat Party - replacing the KKK. The Ferguson situation is condoned and allowed to perpetuate because Democrats want white Americans fear filled - THIS violence could come your community - unless you agree to higher taxes and fewer freedoms. How else can we appeases these JUSTIFIABLY actions.
Immediately, voices who want the US attacked and under a permanent threat - citizens living in a perpetual state of fear - claimed Muslims feelings were hurt if they endured enhanced scrutiny. No Muslim groups stood to demand safety and volunteer for the enhanced scrutiny - to assure safety was applied effectively, efficiently, and with the least cost to all citizens. The silence of Muslims was staggering. Nor was there any indication that Muslims assumed a new perspective - to eradicate the terrorists within their religion. Responsible people could immediately see the savings of time and costs - if the group known to commit acts of terror were the primary group scrutinized.
Many other choices in life place a person under enhanced scrutiny and those are applied without consideration of "emotions" they inspire within an individual enduring the scrutiny - particularly if that person is a white, Christian, male.
The celebration of Christmas is embraced but only as long as the celebration avoids any mention of the causal event for the celebration - Christ's birth. Any public mention of Jesus Christ, or the Christian religion is Strang Verbotten. Christian's have been, and can be, served legal documents for announcing their faith by wearing paraphernalia, or by adorning their work station or office with Christian symbols. The display of a nativity scene on public property is another act that invites a Court challenge. Governments small and large have adopted policies and laws that specifically forbid public references to Christ or Christianity. Person who disobey these laws (by obeying the statutes of Christianity, their religious beliefs) are targeted, sued, and/or face other legal actions. Targeting Christians is sanctioned and encouraged by governments. If the above does not move you to outrage - comprehending the bizarre and nonsensical actions politicians take to avoid bad press - while assuring the problem that prompted their action remains, you are a lost cause, dishonest, and willing to jeopardize the life and property of your fellow citizen - and your own.
In contrast, targeting a Muslim for enhanced scrutiny when traveling - based upon the acts of terror committed by their religious associates - is specifically forbidden despite the security risks associated with not so doing. Governments treat Muslims with a reverence not afforded Christians. Christians and members of other religions are targeted and treated disparately to avoid the appearance of investigating Muslims. The added expense of investigating non-Muslims is exponential and is a clear example of lengths to which governments will go to avoid offending Muslims - no expense is apparently too great. An entire new industry and agency of government was created to avoid offending Muslims.
Governments, and both political parties, will ignore past and current facts and evidence, endorse higher taxes, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to avoid mention of the terror and Muslim religion linkage. The indirect costs of lost efficiencies and time spent under scrutiny push the total costs into the stratosphere. They are nearly incomprehensible.
Recent news reveals how both parties are using the actions of 9/11 to deprive citizens of other liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution. Politicians then denied they are doing it and/or claim the personal information confiscation was useless. Which answer is correct? Why could there be two answers?
This begs the question - WHY is information confiscated?
When the answer to the questions concerning terror risk - and the probably perpetrators known, and synonymous, the need to capture, store, and analyze the information becomes moot. The WHY additionally exposes and explains the likely reasons for the confiscation - control and deprivation of liberties, compiling information to misuse against political opponents, and the innumerable nefarious reasons for taking and keeping the information becomes clear. Republicans and Democrats alike want more control over the US citizenry. The information confiscated permits that control through intimidation and the corresponding loss of freedoms. The power and influence contained in this information is incalculable.
US citizens do not complain or demand different treatment - their privacy preserved outside the reach of government. Fear of Muslims, fear of a comfort loss, fear of an indoctrinated safety risk, and fear that others may receive more freebies than they receive, are reasons enough to prompt a majority to willingly hand over their liberties. The age of freedom is over. No shots were fired. The response to one attack, 12 years past exposed the willingness of a majority of citizens.
The grand experiment in freedom ended when their comforts and freebies were threatened. Those freebies and comforts are soon to disappear the way Detroit is imploding. Even the federal government is unable to provide freebies and preserve the buying power. Once Democrat know they hold complete power, they will act to preserve their hold on power. That will require huge reductions in payout/freebies to maintain the loan money received from China et al. Once China sees an ability to push the USA into insolvency and call their debt - they will.