The State’s erosion of our rights is slow. steady, and incremental. Remember the story of the frog in a pot of water? Drop a frog in hot water and he will jump out, but put him in cool water and slowly heat it up and he will die as he overheats.
If the State demanded an outright ban on free speech, or gun ownership, or privacy, the public would revolt and vote the culprits out of office. So instead the State enacts very small, seemingly benign, “reasonable” infringements of our rights. “Hate Speech” is mean, says the State, and therefore it must be criminalized in order “to protect the public” from hurt feelings. “We don’t want to ban private ownership of firearms, we just need to regulate the industry; so we will grant ‘permits’ to individuals allowing them to purchase handguns”. (And thus a right which the State is prohibited from infringing upon is changed into a privilege given at the discretion of the State.) And privacy?
The State assures the people that their rights are sacrosanct and protected by law, and at the same time it infringes upon those rights “for their protection”. The Patriot Act and other legislation allows the State to gather every bit of digital data created in America. The State can and does use technology most people are not even aware of to enable audio and video surveillance of them in their own homes.
Should our intelligence agencies be able to monitor potential terrorists on American soil? There are arguments to be made for granting them this capability. However, history shows us that when granted great powers, the State ignores legal limitations restricting its authority and abuses those powers. Given the ability to surveil terrorist cells through all digital data, the State now uses that power to surveil everyone.
Those on the Left are particularly prone to abusing the power of the State, as clearly demonstrated by the actions of the Obama administration and the Clinton cartel. Various political opposition groups were falsely labeled “potential terrorist threats” and the power of the State was turned upon them. It is alarming to think how close Hillary Clinton came to the Presidency. Had she won we would never have known that the Democrats fed false reports to the FISA court in order to turn the power of the American government against a political candidate.
George Soros and other extremely wealthy backers of Obama and the Clintons belong to the Club of Rome, a group on record as wanting to form a non-democratic, world government. This would necessitate the eradication of sovereign nations, including the United States, and the creation of subservient regional governments. The Clintons and other politicians supported by Soros are aligned with the Club of Rome and its goals.
Today most leftists have adopted the label “progressive”. The word has a double meaning. It can mean a person or group favoring political reforms and liberal ideas. But it also means “happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step”. Liberals love the term “progressive” because it describes their goals as well as their strategy.
This is why it is so important to stand up against every “reasonable” measure which infringes upon our constitutionally protected rights, or which grants the federal government any more power or authority than the Constitution grants it.