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 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-264 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-264 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