I believe it was "Overide all security." See, only a truly brilliant hacker would know to misspell "override."

Um, who do you think the "United States" are? In 1787, there was no such thing as the welfare of a singular "United States." There was only the welfare of the plural "United States." But you are right that the intent was not to provide for California at the expense of Ohio (or more to the point, to provide for Virginia at the expense of Rhode Island). It was to provide for the general (not specific) welfare of the states, ensuring for example that the states were not molested by foreign powers or by each other (hence, enumerated powers to regulate foreign and interstate commerce and raise armies). People didn't really have a concept of "a" United States in 1787. They considered themselves first to be citizens of their individual states. Their citizenship in the union of states was really secondary. The Framers were very suspicious of centralized government. The folks pushing the idea of giving a federal government any real power at all (even just a few limited, enumerated powers) were the left wingers of their day. They only won because confederation had demonstrably failed. But it really wasn't until the south lost the Civil War that the Union started severely curtailing states' sovereignty and forging a more concrete, unified identity. The states are closer to provinces now.

Well played.

Also, that grant is to provide for the general welfare of the states, not the people who inhabit those states. Nobody even tries to use that clause to pass social programs. It's too absurd. Instead, they use the interstate commerce clause. Thanks to FDR and his threats to stack the Supreme Court if they didn't give him what he wanted, a farmer who grows his own wheat on his own land to feed his own pigs is engaging in interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn). Which really means that no matter what you do, it's interstate commerce, and the Federal Government gets to regulate it. The Federal Government will never be reigned in unless the interstate commerce clause is reigned in.

You say: Nefarious government mind control and newspeak! Conspiracy! Deceit! Run for your lives! Next they'll be coming for your Warcraft!

I say: Some random guy tells his college buddies, "Dudes, this shouldn't even have to be said, but if you're planning to work for the State Department, where you will need a security clearance (which is based on the State Department trusting you to keep classified documents secret), it's a bad idea to go around posting links to classified documents."

Po-tay-toh, Po-tah-to.

Nice quote. But what does it have to do with some guy telling buddies at his alma mater that if they want to work for the state department, it's a bad idea to post links to leaked classified documents?

That's a cute platitude, but since you're apparently a rational, scientific-minded person, I'd like to see your evidence of this. It doesn't comport with my personal experience.

Interesting quote. The reference to a "Starship" makes it sound like it might be from Star Trek, but the Star Trek universe is demonstrably free of any movie with that line.

We moved around quite a bit when I was younger, but some of the places we lived had cold winters. I also have four married sisters who all stay home with their kids. They are married to an engineer, a prison guard, an air-force two-striper, and a dental student respectively. Three of them live in places with very cold winters. All of them live on substantially less than I do. All four have talents they could pursue for commercial gain if they wanted to. All four stay home because they choose to do so. Like I said, I know there are circumstances where it truly is not an option. And yes, I was exaggerating a little (but not that much, and not in all cases). But speaking from my own experience, most people I know personally could do it if they really wanted to.

All I'm saying is that, in my experience, the character is more important than the money. I grew up with very little money, but with two parents who set an excellent example of character and hard work. Their children have grown up valuing education and hard work. I've seen that pattern repeated many times. I've also seen plenty of kids who grow up with lots of money, but with lousy parents, who end up contributing very little to society. And while not everybody can just "choose" to be wealthy, you can choose to set a good example for your kids.