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

Skip to comments.

Liberty Is Overrated--Safety Should Be Our First Concern*
Ever Vigilant ^ | 06-19-2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

Posted on 06/19/2002 11:33:59 AM PDT by sheltonmac

Those worrying about the erosion of liberty in this time of crisis often quote Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The problem with this advice is that it is well over two centuries old, and no one back then could have imagined the dangers we face today. We are at war and should be expected to sacrifice some liberty for safety.

According to a national poll taken recently by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, seven out of 10 Americans said that they would give up at least some of their civil liberties to improve security. That shouldn't be at all surprising considering the magnitude of the terrorist threat to our nation as well as the rest of the free world.

The same poll showed that about 90 percent of Americans favor having more police assigned to patrol public areas. 70 percent believe that there should be a law requiring adults to carry a national ID card with their photograph and Social Security number, and roughly half support the idea of random police searches in public places.

It is clear that most of America is behind the president in his effort to eradicate terrorism. The few individuals who are not seem to be those who are clinging too tightly to their precious Constitution. They refuse to give up even the smallest right, when doing so might mean the difference between victory and defeat.

These people, whether they realize it or not, are the terrorists' strongest allies in this war. Any attempt to detract from the plans of our president and his administration is tantamount to treason. If they can't learn the concept of "go along to get along," they need to be silenced. This war needs to be won-no matter what the cost.

When terrorists attacked our shores on Sept. 11, the fear-mongers immediately launched into their tirades against U.S. foreign policy, particularly our support for Israel. They talked about how the actions of our "empire" fueled the hatred of Islamic fundamentalists and how we should adopt a more isolationist position on global matters. All this, of course, is nonsense.

While the United States may have been able to avoid foreign entanglements at one time, we must realize that this is the 21st Century. This is not the world our forefathers knew. The Constitution may have been good enough for a fledgling nation 200 years ago, but we must evolve beyond such a narrow worldview if we hope to remain a global superpower.

Ronald Reagan once called us to be a "city on a hill," a place upon which all eyes of the world would be cast. If we allow a dusty old document like the Constitution to prevent us from doing what is necessary, we shall lose the respect of those who look to our nation as an example of greatness. No, we must maintain our lofty position in the world, and if that means behaving like an empire, so be it. The only alternative would be to succumb to terrorism, and that cannot be an option.

We need to be more positive. We need to be more supportive of our government, especially now. The president should not be criticized for doing his duty as Commander in Chief. Yet, through it all, there are those who not only see the glass of liberty as half-empty, they see it as the wrong beverage. This unpatriotic attitude was evident when President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law.

I feel I should point out that when President Bush signed the Patriot Act, he was doing what nearly half of all registered voters who actually bothered to vote elected him to do-lead. The people of this nation wanted a leader with an iron resolve and this president has shown that he is the man for the job. Rather than get behind the spirit of the Patriot Act, some disgruntled people would rather focus on the ambiguous aspects of the legislation and live in fear of the worst-case scenario.

As the poll above shows, this administration is merely doing the will of the people. Doing anything else would not bode well for the GOP this November. It would also hurt the president's chances of getting re-elected in 2004, and ensuring his re-election is absolutely vital to winning this war on terror. No other politician has shown such dedication and strength of character. Honestly, I shudder to imagine where this country would be without President Bush at the helm.

To those who insist on holding firm to the Constitution and making the government's job harder than it has to be, let me remind you that WE ARE AT WAR. Get behind the president and show your support. All of your worries are unfounded. If history is any indication, every civil liberty you give up now will be promptly restored once this war is over. That's a promise.

Liberty is overrated. Safety is what counts during times of crisis. After all, how can liberty be enjoyed if one cannot feel safe?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-264 next last
To: ninenot
They are willing to get themselves killed if they take you with them.

Remember one of the first Homicide killers Sirhan Sirhan, was the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.
201 posted on 06/19/2002 8:00:48 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
You're right about one thing. He IS a goober! Read his 151 if you can stomach it!
202 posted on 06/19/2002 8:08:53 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"Would you stick with Frankin on this?" There never was a good war or a bad peace Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

I don't necessarily see a problem with it.

203 posted on 06/19/2002 8:12:27 PM PDT by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
LOL. Peace at any cost. I love it.
204 posted on 06/19/2002 8:15:37 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
You've outdone yourself Lee. Great work.
205 posted on 06/19/2002 8:24:44 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
America today can not have that happen.

What do you call Waco, Ruby Ridge and the M.O.V.E. bombing in Philadelphia? (Wasn't it Philly?)

America can have that happen. The burning and gassing to death of Americans happened at Waco. And it was not suicide contrary to whitewash investigations headed by the good Republican Danforth...

206 posted on 06/19/2002 8:28:23 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"LOL. Peace at any cost. I love it. "

Obviously, you didn't understand the statement.

207 posted on 06/19/2002 8:29:42 PM PDT by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

Comment #208 Removed by Moderator

To: A CA Guy
I have to pay estimated tax.

LOL. Have you ever bothered to look up the definition in the IRS code of a "self-employed" person? It is defined as somebody who holds "public office."

Ever been elected to public office?

209 posted on 06/19/2002 8:29:54 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Sounds very straight forward to me. Are you saying that Old Ben did not mean it that way?
210 posted on 06/19/2002 8:32:02 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

Comment #211 Removed by Moderator

To: Texasforever
:Sounds very straight forward to me. Are you saying that Old Ben did not mean it that way? "

Well let's look at it this way. Given the choice would you rather live in a country that was at war, or would you rather live in a country that was at peace?

212 posted on 06/19/2002 8:36:20 PM PDT by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

Comment #213 Removed by Moderator

To: Demidog
They were bad things and no institution is perfect all the times.
How many times have our armed forces bombed our own troups?
Was that a plan to due that or did good intentions go bad?

One of the followers at Waco was a brother-in-law to a cousin back east and I many times told them to get away from that nut case in Waco before it came down crashing.
My cousin begged them to get out long ago because they had the logical mind to know it was a flakey cult. They didn't listen and died.

A sad end to be sure.
214 posted on 06/19/2002 8:45:32 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
If history is any indication, every civil liberty you give up now will be promptly restored once this war is over. That's a promise.

Somehow, even as I pray the war is won, I cannot help but say that I will believe it if and when I see it.

The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey - undiluted and untaxed. - Sen. Sam J. Ervin (what can I say, once in awhile even a Democrat can commit wisdom, rare - perhaps extinct - though said Democrat be...)
215 posted on 06/19/2002 8:50:37 PM PDT by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stillbornagain
I agree about the borders stillbornagain and can't see another decade go before they are closed up.
The Laden family are not all terrorists. It was Bin that was trouble and our cooperation with Pakistan is OK, but Pakistan has itself no control over the area where Bin Laden slipped through. It is controlled by war lords.

What connections between Bush and the Saudi's? Do they belong to the same oil union because he owned an oil company? Was that the big connection?

What was the connection? No other normal American or American company were acting in the same manner?

I ask because to have contact in the oil industry when you are an oil company owner does not seem weird at all to me.
216 posted on 06/19/2002 8:51:38 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

Comment #217 Removed by Moderator

To: Demidog
Self-employed is a term used here on FR that is a well known as a definition of person in a business for themselves.

We all have to re-evaluate English into the language of the IRS when dealing with those level 13 types and their forms.
Boy do I ever agree with you there.

I'm afraid in Spirit politicians are self-employed as you say as well. Sad!
218 posted on 06/19/2002 8:58:54 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: stillbornagain
Or go ahead and just make 3000 amendments instead of interpreting intent each generation!
219 posted on 06/19/2002 9:00:34 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I'm afraid in Spirit politicians are self-employed as you say as well.</>

Truth is stranger than fiction. The only people required to send in estimated tax are "self-employed" and those are defined as "a person holding public office."

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't looked it up and read it myself.

220 posted on 06/19/2002 9:11:04 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Methinks thou didst fail to peruse post #20. Heh, I did. Thanks for the warning. Of course, all the libs are for the Constitution these days--except for parts of it here and there.
221 posted on 06/19/2002 9:31:04 PM PDT by babaloo999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stillbornagain
Interesting read. But the time lines are important as well as what was or was not legal to do.
If CURRENTLY after 9-11 and while President he had been using now known terrorist connections for business then he must go to jail.

If Bush made business with people here or over-seas that were illegal or frobidden by US law to do business with, then he should go to jail.

Usually those kinds of restrictions are publicly posted for people doing business.

Was there a law broken or are you saying a guy he used to know and do business with ended up being a bad guy?

Because you can't know everything and you don't know every bad guy in your neighborhood until they reveal themselves or there is an investigation that puts light on them.

For example. Before illegal drug users did not really know they were helping fund terrorism until ads went out asking them to stop buying illegal drugs.
If they continue to buy illegal drugs, (especially overseas) you might be able to make a case as to their culpability in connection to terrorist funding now that they know or it had become expressly forbidden because it funds terror.

If these connection were unknown to everyone and the pre-President was in there doing business with everybody else, I don't see the issue.

Tomorrow your employer might become a crazy killer. Could you be held liable today before any knowledge is out there for you to act on?

Is there a law broken? It was a long article and I could have missed something stillbornagain.
222 posted on 06/19/2002 9:31:50 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: babaloo999
Ooops, tried to combine old and new format there.
223 posted on 06/19/2002 9:35:58 PM PDT by babaloo999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

Comment #224 Removed by Moderator

To: stillbornagain
LOL, I have a writing style?

Hey stillbornagain if you really come up with information, I am always glad to give it a read. I love hearing all points of view.

I usually want to know basic things.

#1 What is the issue?
#2 Was a law broken.?
#3 What was the intent?
#4 What is the remedy?
225 posted on 06/19/2002 10:29:03 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

Comment #226 Removed by Moderator

To: stillbornagain
#1 In the Presidents case before, what known law at that time did the President break if any in reguard to hid business dealins?

#2 Most likely means NO in that case or every Democrat would have it pinned to their chest to get the information around.

#3 Intent to make a living is not a bad thing.
Intent to be involved in a crime would be horrible.

#4 Make who you may not deal with in business as a US citizen very clear so there is no doubt as to whether laws are broken.
Then, if then if they fail to do that march peacefully in front of every newspaper office or camera for intention you can.
Always file your return. You NEVER need them looking for you over that. Not filing can lead to jail and confiscation of all your saved assets.

I totally get your frustration over the way things seem to go.
Maybe if there weren't so many Americans with their hand in the treasury they might hold the government more responsible?

Thank you very much for your response stillbornagain.
You made very good points.
227 posted on 06/19/2002 11:22:19 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: stillbornagain
Yikes, will you look at what I typed. the spelling shows how tired I'm getting. Sorry
228 posted on 06/19/2002 11:25:09 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"... lots of us have small crawlers with cable-winches."

The ingenuity of Mankind, when freed from the bondage of fascist government controls and regulations, is a wonderful thing to behold indeed.

I would venture to say that those are some of the quietest crawlers around, too :-)

229 posted on 06/20/2002 2:53:14 AM PDT by Washington_minuteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Yep. I've been seeing his posts for awhile now. Goober might be too weak an epithet. ;-)
230 posted on 06/20/2002 5:04:11 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
So, yours was a strawman argument, you admuit. In response to the comment that 50% of what we make goes to government in the form of taxes, you quipped that anyone paying 50% of his income in federal income tax is a dolt. Didn't work out that well for you, did it? Strawman arguments don't work here. The average FReeper doesn't fall for that tactic. Too many of us are veterans of flame wars online going back to the mid '90s if not earlier.
231 posted on 06/20/2002 5:11:21 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
The problem with this advice is that it is well over two centuries old, and no one back then could have imagined the dangers we face today.

Wrong, Commie statist (I'm refering to the author here). Dead wrong. In case the author of this idiotic piece didn't pay attention during American history because he was too busy reading Trotsky, Ben Franklin and the other Founding Fathers got to experience the kind, gentle, and considerate ways of the British Army, who pretty much did whatever they damn well pleased until we grew so fed up we declared independance from Britian.

Ben Franklin got to experience troops stationing themselves in people's houses without permission, invading homes and searching through the possessions of British citizens without stated cause or permission, arrests without charges and convictions without evidence, excessive taxation without representation, and dozens of other injuries perpetuated by his own government which *we of today* have hardly ever experienced even mildly (though that is changing).

Compared to the dangers represented by a government oppressing its own people, those of terrorist acts are miniscule, especially when an out of control government begins to resemble an organization based on terror -- terror among its own citizens, such as the Soviets used to feel towards their government.

Terrorism must be fought, but not at the expense of self-enslavement.

Tuor

Give me liberty or give me death.

PS You should've put something to indicate this is a satire in the article, not the source. That I know there are fools who believe this stuff is enough to get my blood boiling every time I think about it.

232 posted on 06/20/2002 5:38:11 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
It was kinda vague in spots. Needed more overt satire.

I'm not sure I would call this piece satire, even though the author meant it to be viewed as such. Too many people in the US *really do* believe this, believe it completely and earnestly. For it to be truly satire, IMO, it would have to be something that seems logical, but is too absurd to be believed, and so is believable.

In short, too many people hold some or all of the views expressed in this piece for it to be truly satirical, IMO. It is, instead, a sort of Screwtape letter (written by CS Lewis), and more saddening (and maddening) than amusing, as is good satire.

Tuor

Give me liberty or give me death.

233 posted on 06/20/2002 5:47:04 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
turns out he was a kid fooling with you and it was his finger he stuck in your back...Is he still dead?

I sure hope so. That's Darwinian evolution in action. OTOH, it's not as easy to 'whip around' while holding a gun and put a bunch of bullets into someone. Also, a kid doesn't have a man's voice. A kid also shouldn't be out at night on a dark, deserted street.

But, this story doesn't seem plausable to me. I can't imagine such an event actually occurring in real life, but obviously you can.

Tuor

Give me liberty or give me death.

234 posted on 06/20/2002 5:54:49 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
"But safety is our first concern no matter how obsessed you are with the concept of Liberty. Are you joking?"

Unfortunatley, he is not joking. Interesting that so many people did not see the satire of the post. There are so many posters here that would obviously agree with it, that it was not difficult to see this as just another Bushbot post. Maybe that is because they really do rate liberty way below safety. They also seem to equate government with Country. This country is not what it used to be.
235 posted on 06/20/2002 5:57:08 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
So if this is true, what's the big worry??

The big worry is that the professionals are the ones who flew the planes into those buildings. We are catching minnows while Jaws is bearing down on us from behind. Or, the Al-Queda guys don't mind losing idiots if it keeps us occupied while they prepare something new and nasty for us to deal with. If it causes us to relax, well, so much the better from their point of view.

Tuor

Give me liberty or give me death.

236 posted on 06/20/2002 6:11:55 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

Comment #237 Removed by Moderator

To: sheltonmac
Liberty is overrated. Safety is what counts during times of crisis. After all, how can liberty be enjoyed if one cannot feel safe?

Spoken like a true leftist. Steven Spielburg said as much a few days ago.

238 posted on 06/20/2002 6:21:28 AM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"*NOTE: This is a satirical piece designed to expose the twisted logic of the "win at all costs" crowd, and the views expressed herein should not be confused with the actual beliefs of the author --Lee R. Shelton IV.

You forgot to post this tiny little bit.

I'm glad I clicked on his link and saw that before I went off on him.

239 posted on 06/20/2002 6:23:51 AM PDT by muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dead
The government eats up over half of your salary, whether you’re smart enough to realize it or not.

If he's really "a CA guy", I'd guess it's more than that.

240 posted on 06/20/2002 8:12:28 AM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Neither a "living" Constitution nor your infamous 3000 amendments are needed. The INTENT of the Constitution was and continues to be to BIND THE GOVERNMENT and limit what it is allowed to do. This intent never changes and never SHOULD change. But for idiots (apparently like you) who cannot control your own lives and want Big Brother to do it for you (and TO everyone else, in the bargain), we would not even need to have this conversation. You are a DemonRat with your "living" Constitution and you should be ashamed of yourself. Yet, obviously you have neither shame nor a mind, judging from the pure-dee crap that you post here.
241 posted on 06/20/2002 8:32:14 AM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Liberty is overrated

LIBERTY is what this country is founded upon. I for one, do not want to give up any of it. We can secure our country with a minimum of governmental intrusion on our rights if the security apparatus is focused on the likely terrorists...

Mike

242 posted on 06/20/2002 8:48:22 AM PDT by MichaelP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
"I sure hope so. That's Darwinian evolution in action. OTOH, it's not as easy , Bla bla bla..........."

Obviously you lost the context of my post.

You see, it's important to follow from the beginning.

Call back if I can be of more help to you.

243 posted on 06/20/2002 8:54:07 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
You're right. I must be satire-impaired today or something. Reality has become so much a satire of itself that I can no longer tell where one begins and the other ends. I'm going to go sit in a corner now.

Tuor

244 posted on 06/20/2002 9:06:02 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
Reality has become so much a satire of itself that I can no longer tell where one begins and the other ends.

Ain't it the truth.

245 posted on 06/20/2002 9:48:17 AM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
"You're right. I must be satire-impaired today or something."

No, it was I who fell for Shelton "the Troller's" lame post.

My example was a feeble attempt at showing that when one perpetrates a fraud that same someone must bear the consiquences that come from it.

246 posted on 06/20/2002 12:25:03 PM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
I would have more sympathy towards this argument is the government were doing everything they can to protect us without eroding our liberty first, but they aren't. They won't arm pilots. They won't put the military on the border. They won't crackdown on illegal immigration, and speed up deportations. They waste time strip searching grandmas from Iowa, while refusing to pay extra attention to Muslims for fear of being accused of "racial profiling". They won't tell the Saudis that we will not issue any more visas to Saudis as long as they pay suicide bombers, glorify them in their media, and promote Islamic extremism in American mosques. None of this would even require action by Congress, the Bush adminsration could do it on their own. Until they do I can't support further erosion of our freedom.

You are right on the money, Hugin

247 posted on 06/20/2002 1:01:10 PM PDT by Attillathehon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
"Sounds very straight forward to me. Are you saying that Old Ben did not mean it that way? "

Well let's look at it this way. Given the choice would you rather live in a country that was at war, or would you rather live in a country that was at peace?

Haven’t heard back from you Tex. Cat got your tongue, or are you still thinking about the question?

248 posted on 06/20/2002 1:57:03 PM PDT by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I'll take FREEDOM over safety anyday!!!!!

Excellent article.....

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

249 posted on 06/20/2002 6:34:25 PM PDT by redrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
If we were still living in the 1700s, I would totally agree with you.
Now we have.
#1 Social Security
#2 Medicare
#3 Libraries
#4 Public education. Including a state contribution for a state college.
#5 Product/Food safety and regulation
#6 The new inventions called a paved roads, massive sewer systems, water lines, electric lines, gas lines, street lights, traffic lights, telephone lines and dams.
The above are known examples of modernization. As things get more available and we live less like hermits and people live to be older, the burden on government, people, and the law change.

You see the disaster of Arabs living with the mentality of the 700s. So I would think you would make the connection that the world changed and we can't live in the 1700s either.

I don't know where you get the idea that I get a single nickel from anything connected to the government? I do not. I collect nothing and I'm not employed in any way by them.

I pay for all my own needs. I am not bought out, just logical that as the world progresses, things change, including the need for some additional laws for a current day.
I have no interest in growing government or laws in general. I am always for reviews of laws and reduction in and the simplification of existing laws.

Let me know how this all turns out when you go to court with the Libertarian party over the issues.
250 posted on 06/21/2002 2:10:25 AM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-264 next last

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