where exactly in the article does it say the governmnet wants to blow you up
I need to do more research to solidify my understanding, but it's pretty disconcerting and certainly raises the "slippery slope" question. It's legal (as decided by the Executive branch, without Judicial supervision?) to assassinate a suspected Al-Queda (or associated group?) operative based on a couple of very loosely defined parameters.
Tie that with the FAA Reauthorization act which appears to allow for surveillance of US citizens on domestic soil by both the Federal military, domestic police and potentially even corporations and some Orwellian scenarios certainly spring to mind.
"President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday."
Now, don't get me wrong. When any sort of debate breaks out concerning capitalist markets, religion, tax, or whatever other controversial topic you can imagine, I'm usually the first one to jump in as Mr. Constitutionalism. And I don't easily dismiss concepts such as habeas corpus or due process.
On the other hand, I also recognize that these concepts exist across a continuum. And I am saddened when I see court judgements and congressional mandates which uphold the letter of the law while circumventing its intent.
As a person who views the film Swordfish as a hopeful, optimistic vision of the future, it actually pleases me to see signs which point to the de-pussification of the executive. In a very real way, the world is a mirror of the elementary school playground. And it's the bully who is not afraid to sucker-punch you when the teacher isn't looking who usually winds up with the lunch money.