Un-forutnaly you are right in that our population has lost its virtue and has suffered over the past 100 years or more a general dissolution of principles like liberty as incidentals like Wako demonstrate.  We as a people have become complacent in failing to recognize the significant of the usurpation of the liberty and self-detraction of some inherently endangers the liberty of us all.

We say it’s them, but we have forgotten that them today could be us tomorrow. For the ideology that forgets to respect the liberty and self-determination of others, is not in its nature bound to any specific others.

It rather seeks to rule all, to see to it that all follow it’s ideals and way of life to the exclusion of their own.

Our manners are no longer that of a free people, but rather one that has become complacent to the actions and judgment dictates of the State.

Many of us feel that it is our responsibility to protect others from themselves, but in doing so fail or realizes that such protection is in the most fundamental form, a usurpation of others rights to self-determination.

I believe as Samuel Adam’s said:

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." - Samuel Adams, 1779

I believed for other reasons that our country is eventually and inevitably headed for either dictatorship or civil war.

I believe this fundamentally started because of our relatively compliancy we made the mistake of fundamentally altering and abolishing  key checks in our constitutional system.

Specifically in 1913 with the 16^th and 17^th amendments. 

The 16rh gave unlimited taxing power to the federal government, removing the original restriction that taxies must be waged in proportion to the States population. This is not so accidently the same proportion in which power to spend, (house of reps) is held in the federal government.

The 17^th amendment was even more serous for State’s rights, in that it removed the election of the senate from the Body of the state which holds the most vital interest in preserving state power.(the state legislator).  As a result the Senate like the house became a mob elected legislator that is generally random in its goal.

With the loss of the senate power interest, the states lost the ability to protect their rights and power in the process of ratifying/approving all Judges, officers, Treaties, and laws, made by the federal government that may have served to usurp States rights.

It’s not a coincident that we have had a lot of such striping states rights in theses areas since the U.S. Senate begin acting like the house in general motivation, rather than as the body the founding fathers made it to be in checking federal power.

Of course having the ability to ignore the constitution and abuse power does not necessarily mean one will, at least not at first, but eventual slowly but surely they are going to find ways to uses it.

And the biggest users of this so far started 19 years later with FDR. FDR like hittlers power of speech mesmerized the mob, and that in turn gave him super majorities in both the house and senate.  Because remember the senate is now elected by the mob not by the State power holding state legislator.

FDR used this power to implement his new deal, and when the Supreme court ruled theses laws trying to control internal state economic activity and liberty(at the expense of the state controlling itself) unconstitutional.  FDR used his very legitimate control of both houses of congress including most importantly the senate. To propose a plan to pack the court with his own cronies. 

In response as you all know the court had “the switch to save the 9”, the court suddenly reversed it self under blackmail made possible only because FDR controlled the house and most importantly the senate meaning he could practically do what he said, overthrowing the court into being his menus.

As a general rule our Constitution formally died that day, the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t over rule anther act of congress expanding federal power until the early 1990’s.

But in that time you have had nearly equally as vast expansions of federal power, under JFK, LBJ, even Nixon with his war on drugs, carter, ect..

We for all practical proposes ceased to be a Constitutional republic(government of laws) and became something very much more like that of a pure democracy.

And we have and continue to live out exactly what John Adams and other founding fathers said about the inevitable fate of democracies:

“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” – John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

Source Link:  http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2104&chapter=159889&layout=html&Itemid=27

I feel that Tyranny and ultimately dictatorship to maintain the nearly inequitable model, is inevitable at this point unless men learn from history and somehow reverse it.

An act that as many before have demonstrated will likely lead to inner conflict as the exploiting mob is not likely to want their easy money at the expense (Slavery) of other to stop coming.  That there is where a Civil war may be necessary to liberate ourselves from this tyranny.

The choice is ours as it will continue to be our children’s and their children’s should we do nothing or fail to restore our liberty.

For I believe as that freedom and self-determination are innate drives in human nature from each humans point of view of course.

I believe as John Adams said:

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” - John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

I believed that one day our <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->descendents will again be free, to manage their own life’s with out big government trying to manage and dictate how they live it to them.