Skip to comments.Ravenel: Lindsey Grahamís contempt for liberty canít go unchallenged
Posted on 02/21/2014 5:12:27 AM PST by cotton1706
Shortly after the federal governments domestic spy network was exposed last spring, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham went on national television to say he was glad the National Security Agency was monitoring, collecting and storing our personal information.
Im a Verizon customer, Graham said. I dont mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I dont think youre talking to the terrorists. I know youre not. I know Im not.
Im curious: Other than the Fourth Amendment (which Graham is explicitly rejecting), what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice?
The governments Orwellian domestic spy web courageously exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden represents a clear and present danger to fundamental American freedom. Its very existence recalls a prescient warning from founding father Benjamin Franklin, who wrote they who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Why is Lindsey Graham urging us to ignore this wisdom? Is it the perpetuation of our governments War on Terror which continues to needlessly shed American blood and tax dollars on engagements of dubious benefit? If so, Graham clearly needs to reacquaint himself with the concept of a cost-benefit analysis.
I am not arguing against national security which even the most zealous pro-liberty advocate should recognize as a core function of government. I am simply saying Grahams definition of this function like many of the Washington definitions he has embraced over the last two decades is distorted. Our nation would be much more secure and much freer if it refrained from pursuing the costly and ineffective interventionist foreign policy advocated by Graham
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Lose the Linds and Ditch the Mitch
This is the 2002 to 2003 mentality that most Americans have abandoned long ago, thankfully.
Grahamnesty is still at the top of my list of those who need to be retired, yes, above McConnell. There is a slick glow of deceitfulness about him that really ticks me off.
I saw a a minute of him talking on FNC last night and that was enough .
and YET we have Franklin, you know the elitist racist founder saying ‘They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ who would have thunk it but its not as if islamic terrorism was happening around then...oh no wait....
That is a weird eccentricity of RINOs, that they are as “socially” liberal as Democrats, but when confronted about it, lash out, trying to appear to be authoritarian or even totalitarian extremists.
They think that appearing extremely militaristic and pro-police and secret police state, they will somehow appeal to conservatives, figuring it “balances” their politics.
But it is like “balancing” depressing liberalism by being manic neo-fascists. Neither extreme is good. Manic-depression is not good.
While that is not the full extent of their problems, it is the foundation on which they build, and it just makes them intolerable.
“Other than the Fourth Amendment (which Graham is explicitly rejecting), what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice?”
Every one of them. Graham is a liberal democrat. He ran as
a republican to get into office and that’s as far as it goes.
He’s no different than the heterophobic frauds that are
undermining the catholic church as priests or the
communist fraud that sits in the white hut today.
That’s what communist do they infiltrate and spoil from within.