Consider this a warning. . .

One day soon, we will step outside our doors to a very different world. The Stanley McChrystal interview is perhaps the most overt example, perhaps a warning of sorts. If the top of our military is so very unhappy as to flirt with court martial for badmouthing the civilian chain of command;

[“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” not to mention article 133, Conduct unbecoming an officer.],

I agree with Karl Denninger here. This is a frightening thing to have happened. A soldier may badmouth his leaders, his president, or his chow but only to himself or his compatriots. To challenge the civilian authority here is astonishing. Dangerous. Telling.

This hack court ruling, if allowed to stand is one of the last nails in our coffin. In order to control a society, one must control the information and communication. This ruling should take care of that.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s rulingand said there’s no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law “addresses a substantial or important governmental interest.” This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it shows a “substantial or important government interest.” But that makes no sense. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect citizens’ interests against situations where the government’s interests went against citizens’ interests. It should never make sense to judge a First Amendment claim on whether the government has “substantial or important” interests.

On top of that, the court basically said “Congress knows best” on this issue. Again, this seems to go against the entire point of the First Amendment and the important judicial protections of the First Amendment. The whole point of court oversight of Congress is because Congress doesn’t always know best. But here, the court has no problem deferring entirely to Congress:“This deferential standard is warranted for two important reasons. First, Congress is “far better equipped” as an institution “to amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data bearing upon the legislative questions.” … Second, we owe Congress “an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.”"

Much more here at TechDirt

We live in very dangerous times and it is showing no sign of abating. What you see here, as outrageous as it is, should; perhaps, be considered the tip of the ice berg. Everything they have done prior to this has inexorably led to this.

Political outrage will not change things. The judiciary has taken powers they were never given and we've gone along. The congress has taken powers they were never given and we have gone along.

In Germany, before WWII, it went just this way. There was no sudden usurpation of power. Rather, reasonable, sensible laws were passed to ensure the safety of the people. No revolution occurred. The sheeple went right along with the status quo because it never occurred to them that it was wrong.

I just hope there are enough of us to raise the flag. This next year will be an interesting one.

More on this here at I'll Take Liberty