Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ravenel: Lindsey Grahamís contempt for liberty canít go unchallenged
thestate.com ^ | 2/21/14 | Thomas Ravenel

Posted on 02/21/2014 5:12:27 AM PST by cotton1706

Shortly after the federal government’s 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.

“I’m a Verizon customer,” Graham said. “I don’t 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 don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not.”

I’m curious: Other than the Fourth Amendment (which Graham is explicitly rejecting), what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice?

The government’s 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 government’s “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 Graham’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections

1 posted on 02/21/2014 5:12:28 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Lose the Linds and Ditch the Mitch


2 posted on 02/21/2014 5:17:21 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706; Impy; NFHale; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj
RE:”Shortly after the federal government’s 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.
“I’m a Verizon customer,” Graham said. “I don’t 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 don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not.”
I’m curious: Other than the Fourth Amendment (which Graham is explicitly rejecting), what indispensible American liberties would he sacrifice? “

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 .

3 posted on 02/21/2014 5:28:55 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to US citizenship for illegals HERE is a special path to it ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

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....


4 posted on 02/21/2014 5:41:47 AM PST by Irishguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

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.


5 posted on 02/21/2014 5:54:44 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

“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.


6 posted on 02/21/2014 6:27:00 AM PST by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson