Integrity

In∙teg∙ri∙ty  n.  1. The quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety  2. The quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness   3. The quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity—SYN. See HONESTY

Integrity is a good thing. A virtue. Something we value if we want thriving civilization.

So it’s something we want—need—in our leaders.

That’s why I was concerned a couple of evenings ago when I first saw the story that the Ted Cruz campaign had sent out a false story that Carson was dropping out of the race in order to persuade Carson caucus goers Monday night to change to Cruz. At the first moment I felt a sort of kick in the gut. But since I’ve done quite a lot of vetting of Senator Cruz—for years, since I vetted him when he ran for the Senate from Texas—I thought there must be something more to the story. And there was.

Much more detail came out yesterday. I didn’t do the original research on this; you probably heard it from several sources already. (Jennifer Burke at Politistick, Mark Levin on his radio show, Dana Loesch on The Blaze,[i] for example). I’m not a news outlet. So after we summarize the story, we’ll get to the commentary.

Here’s the order of events.

Tweet, image from Politistick

CNN reporter Chris Moody heard from as-yet unidentified person in the Carson campaign that, instead of heading to New Hampshire and South Carolina, Carson was heading home to Florida for some R&R before Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast. He took this news and tweeted it. CNN then reported this on TV at 6:45 PM (Iowa time, so shortly before the Iowa caucuses began)—Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, during their Iowa Caucus coverage. The banner over their report said, “Campaign: Carson to take break after Iowa.” They noted that this was unprecedented for a presidential campaign—unless they were planning to drop out, they implied. So that was the natural speculation.

The Cruz campaign tweet, image from here

Five minutes later the Carson campaign began trying to clarify: they were heading to Florida to avoid a storm and to pick up some fresh clothes. Getting that clarification to spread took some time.

By 7:00 the Cruz campaign put out the news to precinct captions in Iowa, saying, specifically:

Breaking news. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big announcement next week. Please inform and Carson caucus goers of this news and urge them to caucus for Ted Cruz.

It was signed by Spence Rogers. Shortly afterward Iowa’s Steve King tweeted the same message, as did the Ted Cruz campaign, including a screen shot of the CNN story in the tweet.

The Rubio campaign also pushed the story. The evidence is a tweet by Rubio proponent Conrad Close.

Tweet, image from Politistick

This was posted at 7:29 Iowa time, Monday, as the caucuses started. Almost twenty-four hours later Rubio was on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, decrying the unfair dirty tricks of the Cruz campaign, righteously indignant, saying his campaign was above such things. The above tweet still existed at 7:29 PM Tuesday, during that interview, but disappeared at 7:30, which wouldn’t have been known if the Politistick writer hadn’t taken a screen shot.

Backing up to the Iowa caucuses. Going in, Carson was polling fourth; he came in fourth—with a higher percentage than predicted. There are no stories of visible scrambling and discussing the story among Iowa caucusgoers of Carson leaving. There was no visible exodus of Carson voters. Nor are there, to date, any anecdotal stories of individuals who changed because of the news story (or Cruz's campaign's passing it on, or Rubio's either) about Carson’s plans.

Following the outcome Monday, Trump even sounded somewhat subdued and humbled—honored to have come in second, which was more than originally expected. When asked about that low-key attitude change, he said he was trying to be a bit dialed back, and presidential sounding, because some people like that, he was told. The point is, Monday night he congratulated Cruz and was unaware of anything amiss in the caucuses.

The Cruz campaign didn’t lie. They didn’t stretch the truth. They repeated what was being told on the news, which is fair game. That is what we think the Rubio campaign was doing as well.

On Tuesday, after the Cruz campaign note came to the attention of Carson, he called it dirty tricks, and what you expect from politicians, and why we need a non-politician, etc. In other words, he took political advantage of the situation to advance his own campaign narrative.

Ted Cruz did what you would expect of someone with integrity. He apologized for the misunderstanding. Some people took this to be an admission of guilt. Later he clarified that there had been a misunderstanding based on the CNN news report (it wasn’t, by the way, the Cruz campaign’s misinterpretation, but the CNN reporter’s wording and subsequent speculation, which the Cruz campaign merely passed along as newsworthy), and his apology specifically was that, once they became aware of Carson’s clarification (which came to them during the heat of the ongoing caucuses), they didn’t send out a follow-up correction. They hadn’t said Carson was ending his campaign, but they were apologizing for not following up to say directly that Carson wasn’t dropping out.

Carson invokes his Christianity, and Cruz’s, and refuses to accept the apology.

Rubio, as noted above, decides Cruz’s note was purposefully deceptive, and fails to mention the use of the same information by his own campaign.

Trump opportunistically decides that a huge injustice has been done to his dear friend and fellow candidate, Ben Carson. So this is, in his opinion, a monumental bad deed done by Cruz personally, because he’s an evil person. And then it becomes about him. He decides to claim that a huge portion of Cruz voters resulted from this dirty fraud, and if it hadn’t been for this huge shift of voters from Carson to Cruz, Cruz wouldn’t have had a high enough percentage to beat Trump. So he calls for a redo of the entire caucus, or at least a negation of Cruz’s win—depriving him of his delegates, leaving Trump the winner. How convenient.

Back up to November, when Carson was leading in national polls. Trump trashed him daily in his ubiquitous media, going so far as saying he’s pathologically violent—incurable, like a pathological sex offender. Mark Levin catalogued those attacks on his radio show (particularly at 12 minutes in). That was what Trump calls fair. But what Cruz did was so costly to Carson that he should be disqualified entirely?

So, what we see is pretty much what we expect from all the characters, if we’ve been paying attention:

Cruz is gracious and meticulously scrupled. He has integrity, which we had supposed all along.

Carson is overly sensitive and politically inexperienced. A bad thing happened to him—apparently because of his own behavior, which had meaning that he did not anticipate. He’s angry at Ted Cruz in the moment and unwilling to forgive—for now. But I think, as things play out, and Cruz becomes the nominee, Carson will get over the immediate anger and disappointment and see things more clearly. He won’t remain unforgiving. I’m guessing that. Maybe he is just using this as an opportunity to get sympathy and invoke his “non-politicians are better” message. That is happening. But I think he really is a decent person who hasn’t yet grasped his own role in this kerfuffle. He doesn't appear to be fully in integrity at the moment, but I expect he will get there again.

Rubio may or may not be aware that his own campaign was doing precisely what he calls underhanded from the Cruz campaign. If he knows, he’s simply a slick liar when it comes to politics. If he didn’t know, he’s using this opportunity to attack an opponent in the race—because that is what politicians do. Lying about it is completely out of integrity. Taking advantage of it in a campaign is what politicians do, but I don’t like it. But it doesn’t make him worse than whoever our Democrat opponent will be. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and guessing it's a political opportunity rather than outright lie, based on what we’ve seen of him in the past. So I don’t completely write him off, even though he’s not my choice. I’m hoping that years of experience will lead him to greater integrity.

Donald Trump is what we have come to expect: self-centered, opportunistic, lying, manipulative, a bully and a sore loser. He clearly doesn’t care about Ben Carson; we know that from his own voluminous words. He doesn’t know what fraud is in legal terms. But he’s willing to use his money to try to buy, through lawsuits or other means, the outcome he wants for his own advantage. Integrity is not a word we apply to Donald Trump. “The quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity” is a definition that rarely intersects with him even tangentially.

One more mention about integrity: Rand Paul. He bowed out Tuesday (Santorum and Huckabee also bowed out). This presidential race wasn’t the right time for Rand Paul, as it was never the right time for his father. But he served a purpose in the conversation. The debate connects with the Constitution much more than it would have without Ron and Rand Paul input. Rand Paul and I don’t agree on everything. He’s libertarian, and I am not quite. But I believe the conversation needs to be between conservatives and libertarians talking about the Constitution. I think Paul has been honorable. He hasn’t been altering his message in a misguided attempt to get more mainstream voters. I appreciate his integrity in this campaign. It would have been a better political season if his message had been magnified in place of Trump’s. It is my hope that his followers will recognize Cruz as the closest to their cause.

Integrity is something we want and need in a leader, but it’s a rarity in politicians. Ted Cruz is a rarity. I’m glad the truth came out quickly this week, when his integrity was impugned. If it had been true—or unrefuted—it would have done more damage to Ted Cruz than anything said about Carson's going home after Iowa.

---

[i] This link might require a subscription to view.

Texas Talk--Part II

This is part II of a three-part piece, reporting what I observed at the Texas State Republican Convention last weekend. Part I covered Senator Ted Cruz’s speech, which was important because he was so clearly the Texas favorite for a 2016 presidential candidate—and it was a good speech, which we never hear from our current president. Today we’ll cover highlights of some other speakers. And in part III we’ll get to the part that’s been coming up in the news, concerning platform debate, which I found interesting but much less contentious than the media portrays it.

Greg Abbott speaks at Texas GOP Convention

Speeches aren’t really the business of a convention, but they are an opportunity for sharing views, and getting the hardcore grassroots of the party excited about candidates. More of that happens in a presidential election year. But this year includes a number of statewide Texas races: governor, lieutenant governor (that’s like vice-governor in Texas, a position with a lot of influence over the state senate), attorney general, railroad commissioner (a three-person commission over mainly the oil and gas industry and other natural resources), and agriculture commissioner.

 

Greg Abbott—Attorney General, Candidate for Governor

I want to cover Greg Abbott’s speech first. He is the current Texas Attorney General, and has used that position to sue the Obama administration numerous times. He has prevailed on allowing displays of the Ten Commandments. There are many cases still pending related to Obamacare, but he does understand the 10^th Amendment and has been asserting those rights first through legal channels, which was his job. (Ted Cruz served under him as Solicitor General before running for senator.) I have liked him since the first time I heard him speak—at a state GOP convention ten years ago. He’s been one of my favorites every year. So I was pleased to know he was running for governor, and I’ve been behind him from the beginning.

He’s a lawyer, so you expect a cerebral approach to things, and you get that. His campaign theme is Bicentennial Blueprint. In 22 years from now—when babies born today will be about ready to graduate from college and get out into the world—Texas has its 200^th birthday. That is, when it won independence from a tyrannical Mexican dictator and became an independent republic, before some years later becoming a state in the United States. So, he points out that Texans have been pioneers in oil, in ranching, and even space exploration. “Texas is truly exceptional.” So he’s asking what it will look like 22 years from now. Because he and his opponent, Wendy Davis, have very different visions of what Texas should look like.

“Her prescription is more government. My prescription is more freedom,” Abbott says. Texas is the best business climate in America now. How to you get it better?

·        Limit the size of government, to stimulate the private sector to create jobs—so you keep more of your hard-earned money.

·        Government must live within a budget. Don’t allow the Rainy Day Fund to be used like an ATM machine. Debt today becomes taxes tomorrow. All levels of taxing entities in Texas must post online how they’re spending their budgets.

·        Government answers to you—not the other way around.

·        Reduce property taxes.

·        Prioritize roads and water. Protect the water supply. And build roads without raising taxes, fees, or tolls.

He inserted some humor here. In case you don’t know, Greg Abbott is in a wheelchair. When he was in his 20s, a couple of years after getting married, he was out running and a tree fell on him, leaving him paralyzed. I’ve heard him tell that story before, adding, “People assume I must have been the world’s slowest runner, if I couldn’t outrun a tree.” This time, talking about roads, he said, “There are places where a guy in a wheelchair can go faster than a car in traffic. Elect me governor, and I’ll get Texas roads moving again.”

Confetti Storm after Greg Abbott's speech

He also said his main plan for crime is to secure the border. “Cartel activity has contaminated across the state,” he said. Priorities are messed up. “The government stops a valedictorian from mentioning God, but doesn’t stop drug cartels.”

And while he was on federal failures, he added Obamacare and VA care: “The federal government doesn’t have a clue how to run healthcare. Get government out of healthcare. Let doctors and patients make decisions.”

“Patients first; bureaucrats last.” Of veterans, he said, “Having served on the front lines, they should go to the front of the line to get healthcare.”

He said the cornerstone of his Bicentennial Blueprint is education. His wife has been a teacher and principal, so he has some contact with the front lines. Texas reigns in jobs, energy, exports, and business climate. “It’s time for Texas to become number one for education of our children.”

I tend to cringe when anyone in government talks about education, but I think he gets it. “The job of government is to set the vision,” he said. And added that we need genuine local control, including allowing opt-outs from hurdles put in the way from the capitol in Austin. “Teachers and parents know better how to educate than bureaucrats.” And he’s against so much standardized tests. He said, what will matter in preparation for tomorrow isn’t how a student does on some test, but how prepared they are for life. He emphasized, we’ll “drive a stake through the heart of C-SCOPE (Texas’s version of Common Core) and never allow it.”

One highlight of his speech was what you might call the outreach part. He said the blueprint is to live up to greater opportunity for all, “Regardless of race, religion, or zip code.” And he said his family mirrors the state of Texas. His wife is the daughter of an Irish father and Mexican mother, and he is the son of Anglo parents. “Juntos somos una familia.” (Together we are a family.) “This blending of culture works in the Lone Star State.” I think he’s right about that. You see that at our local tea party meetings, and at the convention.

If he is elected governor, which I am planning on, his wife will be Texas’s first Hispanic first lady. The democrats, meanwhile, are offering a divorced, gold-digging, self-centered blonde, whose claim to fame is a pointless filibuster of a bill to limit late-term abortions to the point where fetuses are known to experience pain. Sometime I’ll talk about the “abortion Barbie” candidate. But for now, let’s just say, Greg Abbott is going to make an excellent governor of the biggest, most conservative and therefore most thriving state in the union.

 

Dan Patrick—State Senator District 7, Candidate for Lieutenant Governor

Dan Patrick is my state senator. So I’ve talked with him in person, and heard him speak in person many times. Plus, he’s had a radio show I started listening to when I moved to Texas. So I feel like I know him well. And he’ll be an excellent Lieutenant Governor.

Senator Dan Patrick

His speech at the convention was on fire.

“There’s this thing called Battleground Texas—they’ve picked the wrong ground to battle on.” That was his beginning. In case you’re not familiar, Battleground Texas is a sub-ACORN organization with the purpose of turning Texas blue (democrat). Mathematically, if they could do that, Republicans would never again win a US presidential race. But it’s not going to happen—because we’re being vigilant, which those guys aren’t used to facing.

Dan Patrick said, “We are the high ground on liberty. They live in a valley where the desert never blooms freedom. We will win on the high ground of principles.”

Much of his speech was on how to get the message out of who we are and what we stand for: life, job opportunity, educational opportunity. This “Be bold,” and “Share the Message” was something of a theme through all of the speeches, and probably a good plan of action for all the grassroots going forward.

His opponent, Leticia Van de Putte, he said is an ideological copy of democrat candidate for governor Wendy Davis: “Nothing she stands for has anything in common with any American or Texan.” He listed a few: “They’re for abortion, and against school choice. They’re for Obamacare, and against border security.”

Immigration is a big issue with Dan Patrick. “We’re not against immigration—we’re against illegal immigration. Hispanics are with us on securing the border.” I didn’t get all the numbers written down, but I think these are what he shared. There are 100,000 gang members in Texas, here illegally. In four years there were 113,000 violent criminal aliens arrested, and then released; 79% went back mostly into San Antonio. There are 700,000 young adults that have come in in the last several months, causing a humanitarian crisis. Our service centers are almost full, so that, if we have a hurricane or other emergency (likely in any given year), we have no place to evacuate our own citizens.

His policy on immigration is pretty much equivalent to mine: Secure the border first. No pathway to citizenship for those here illegally. Once the border is secure and no special gimmes are offered, then deal with those that are still here. (Need I point out that this is what Romney said in 2012?) And when is the border secure? “It’s secured when Texas tells Washington it’s secured—not when Washington tells Texas it’s secure.”

He’s headed the Education committee in the state senate, and is clear on education issues. (I know he’s been educated along the way on homeschooling.) Like Abbott, his wife has also been a teacher.

He’s for lower property taxes—so we don’t forever “rent” our own property from the state of Texas.

Unlike his relatively good predecessor, Dan Patrick promises, “I’m not going to put democrats in leadership of committees.” Yay!

He points out how oil and gas is an example of free enterprise working. In Midland, he says McDonald’s pays a bonus to attract workers. That’s what happens when there’s full employment and opportunity.

He’s traveled the state in this campaign, with some 1000 meetings. With no entourage. He has had a chauffeur. And a bodyguard. “She’s the same person, my wife of 39 years.”

He has been effective in the state senate. At age 63 he has no aspirations beyond being Lieutenant Governor. I believe him when he says he wants to serve, because I’ve seen that’s what he’s done consistently. 

 

Rand Paul—Senator from Kentucky

Rand Paul isn’t a candidate for anything in Texas. However, he was born and raised in Texas (son of former US Representative Ron Paul). He grew up in Lake Jackson, south of Houston, and went to Baylor, where he met his wife, a Kentuckian, which is how he ended up there. There’s a possibility he might run for president in 2016. So he came home for the convention. 

Rand Paul has the talent of talking to a room of 8,000 people as if he’s in your back yard having a casual chat over barbecue. He’s fun to listen to. And on ideas I like him better than his father. Still, there are things I disagree with him on, as I do with many libertarians. But he’s fairly careful about how he says things, and I believe we could occasionally disagree without rancor. There are so many things to agree on.

Senator Rand Paul

He starts out, “I’m a little annoyed with Obama right now.” He refers to the illegal release of five Taliban higher-ups from Guantanamo. He referred to the marine who accidentally crossed the border into Mexico and is being imprisoned there, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi. He suggested it would be a better idea to trade five democrats for the marine—“John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi….” Later, news media attacked him for this suggestion. He said to lighten up; it was a joke. “Except for Nancy Pelosi; I was serious about her.”

He talked about how difficult it is to cut even the rate of growth of government spending. During the shutdown, he said everyone in government was “asked to list who was essential and unessential on our staff. So I asked my staff to get together the list from the EPA, the IRS…” Those entities listed 90% of their staffs as unessential. Still, they manipulate things so that the unessential get paid while not working. “The government could be shut down completely, and it costs more than when it’s open.”

He’s good with examples. “One woman was paid for not working—over $100,000 a year—and hadn’t even clocked in in five years.” They didn’t fire her.

One government employee was discovered to be downloading port six hours a day. He wasn’t fired.

There was John Biele, a senior EPA official, who collected a salary for work he didn’t do—for 13 years, getting $150,000, whether he showed up or not, and the time he didn’t show up totaled 2 ½ years. He told the EPA that when he wasn’t in, it was because he was on secret assignment with the CIA. It took more than a decade before that TV script story was questioned, and someone called the CIA and found out he’d faked the story.

“But the democrats say there’s nowhere we can cut.” So he offers help. There’s $100 billion in the budget unaccounted for. A simple hiring freeze, allowing for attrition, would save $6 billion a year. We pay $20 billion a year keeping up unoccupied federal buildings. We pay $20 billion in aid to corporations—an average of $200 million a year to each company receiving corporate welfare.

He admits that the 2/3 of mandatory social spending, like social security, requires some difficult choices. But he suggests we raise the retirement age by 1-2 months a year for 30 years. He offered this solution, and asked the democrats to “work with us, do the right thing.” The response? They accused him of “pushing grandma off a cliff.”

A third of the budget goes to the military. During the shutdown, the president was afraid you might not notice—“so he had to make you notice.” He closed down private monuments. One great image was of WWII veterans cutting through the barrier tape.

He told of one ridiculous example: Twiggy the waterskiing squirrel. There’s $3 million in the budget for this. Now, compared to the whole budget, when they’re saying we can’t cut anything—we find Twiggy? It turns out, Twiggy the waterskiing squirrel is used to promote American walnuts in Spain. “I’ve got a suggestion,” Paul says; “If you’ve got a walnut farm, pay for your own d**n advertising.” When it came to a vote, Twiggy the Squirrel funding passed 320-90. It’s not just a democrat problem.

He took a moment to refer to the “Old McDonald’s Farm” of scandals, “here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal.”

Benghazi means the death of four Americans. The ambassador had spent six months asking for reinforcements. Specific request: a DC-3, a 50-year-old plane, just in case they needed to evacuate. Hillary said no. They ended up begging Libyans to let them use a plane to evacuate.

Three days after turning down the Libyan ambassador’s request, she approved $100,000 for changing (I think he said) carpet in the Italian embassy. She approved $650,000 for Facebook ads. Later that season the Brussels embassy got $100,000 for landscaping, and $5 million went for crystalware.

In August 2012, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable to Hillary asking if she’d read his requests for help. She said no. “That is dereliction of duty.”

“To win nationally, we need to be a bigger, better, bolder pary. We need to keep on message and be bolder with our message.” There’s that “be bold” theme of so many speeches.

He reminded us Reagan was dramatically, boldly, for cutting taxes—to create jobs. We bring new people into the party when we speak that truth.

He said we’ll keep on emphasizing the Second Amendment—“Don’t give up on that. But also the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and First Amendments.”

There more examples—of abuses of freedom, and why we need the protections. And also ways to address those things in Congress. Here was one not likely to pass: “Cut congressional pay in half—have them there only half as much. And institute a work requirement.” He also said, “There’s no monopoly on knowledge in Washington.”

He ended with that bold theme again: “Bigger, bolder, better—with optimism.” He used a memorable image for this a quote historian David McCullough has used. It’s from painter Robert Henri, about the joyful, bold way he paints. Rand Paul changes it slightly for the political party: “Proclaim our message like a man coming over the hill singing.”

I believe a bold, clear, uncompromising message is many times better than defensive, compromising off-message talk. Let’s defend the Constitution, let people know why we believe in it, show why it makes better opportunities for everyone. Conserving the Constitution has so much more to offer humanity than any other political path. That bold talk is something I really like about Texas.

Recognizing Savagery When We See It

This is the fourth in the anniversary review of the Spherical Model basics. Part I covers the introduction and the Political Sphere. Part II covers the Economic Sphere. Part III covers the basics of Civilization. In all three the emphasis has been on the principles that get us up in the northern freedom thriving zone. I’m adding this additional segment about what savagery looks like, in case we’re missing the evidence of savagery around us.

Sometimes we think only of worst-case scenarios as savagery: the holocaust, genocide, cannibalism, mafia killings, child abuse, imposed euthanasia, raping and pillaging. But there’s also a lot that happens on the way down. So, here’s a general description of what you might find in a savage world:

·         Families break up or fail to form. Children are unwanted, avoided, and even abandoned by one or both parents. Promiscuity is commonplace and accepted as normal, even honored as a preferred lifestyle.

·         People fail to worship God, ranging from indifference, simply not attending religious services, to not choosing a religion, to declaring antipathy and disdain toward religious people.

·         People fail to live in peace with one another. Nations fight other nations or threaten war. Factions separate from other factions and refuse to tolerate differences in belief. Tribes separate from other tribes and put loyalty to ethnic connection above loyalty to God or righteous behaviors.

·         Poverty increases and becomes more difficult to rise above; society is more permanently stratified. Corrupt business practices abound, with neither workers nor hirers keeping their part of agreements. Producing wealth and preserving it both become increasingly difficult. Takers willingly confiscate from producers, discouraging production—which decreases innovation and invention, curtailing technological progress. People seek to get what they can for themselves and leave helping the poor to others.

·         Art, literature, and music deteriorate, with lack of form along with dissonance and ugliness being praised in place of truth, beauty, form, and function.

·         Pressure against civilizing principles grows stronger. Religion is removed from public discourse. Parental rights are diminished. Controlling entities take over choices about raising and educating children. Choices about food, health care, media, work, use of income, and other basic freedoms are also usurped by controlling entities.

·         Trust fails. Children are encouraged to distrust parents and report on them. And neighbors are encouraged to distrust and report on their neighbors. People will have reason to distrust law enforcement, which will be inadequate for their protection. And people will be deprived of means to protect themselves.

·         Laws become arbitrary, favoring cronies, ignoring basic justice and fairness. Eventually this includes arbitrary violations of life, liberty, and property based on the interests of the controlling entities.

This last was made relevant Tuesday by our current Attorney General Eric Holder, chief of the Department of Justice, in a response to a request for clarification from Senator Rand Paul; Holder claimed the idea was only hypothetical and not part of the administration’s plans, but he could conceive of a scenario in which the president could, in theory, assassinate a US citizen on US soil without due process based on the government’s opinion that the person could be planning terrorism. Combine that hypothetical with the government’s definition of grassroots patriots, including Tea Partiers, as possible terrorist threats, and it’s not a huge leap to worst case scenarios. It took Senator Paul’s extraordinary near-13-hour old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday to nudge the AG into sending the senator a letter declaring that the Constitution does indeed limit the administration in this specific way.

So, for now, we can rest assured that assassination for our opinions is not imminent (if the administration can be believed). But that hardly means all is rosy.

We may not be aware of how far into savagery we have sunk, because many of us can still go about our daily lives as usual. But we have a president who disdains regular American citizens, anyone who doesn’t go along with his socialist intentions, saying they “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion,” and then accuses them of “antipathy toward people who aren't like them.” He refuses to enforce the DOMA legislation he made an oath to uphold, sues states that attempt to enforce US border protection, and increasingly rules by edict (“executive order”) when Congress doesn’t cave to his pressure for higher taxes and higher entitlement spending. In a petulant fit, he insists any budget cuts (in the rate of increase, caused by the sequester he suggested) be as painful as possible. That is our leadership, chosen by the people in what we assume was a free and relatively fair election.

When you go through the list above, you can see plenty of symptoms of savagery already all around us. Those of us who love civilization already recognize the decay. We mourn what we’ve already lost. And we tenaciously adhere (rather than bitterly cling) to the principles required for civilization, in hopes that in our own homes and perhaps also in our own communities we can yet enjoy some of the beauty of civilization.