Liberty Is Overrated--Safety Should Be Our First Concern*

Ever Vigilant ^ | 06-19-2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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?

[A CA Guy]

By the way, I agree with you that rates are still high. If they would lower them we would get more people working harder because they would get to keep more of their own money.
Taxes are like the drug pot. They deaden your ambition.

[A CA Guy]

Knock yourself out!

[Duke Nukum]

I think arming all U.S. citizens and offering trained observer classes would increase liberty and securtiy.

I'll have to see if this guy has an email address so I can let him know my simple solution that I hope will become known as the Nukum Plan.

[68 grunt]

Would you do everybody from California a favor and just shut the hell up!

[68 grunt]

Judging from your posts, that California power crisis is much worse than I thought.

Precious!!!

[dead]

LOL! People like you are the reason I try not to insult Californians too much.

Believe me, I can sympathize. I live in NJ, and recently moved out of NY.

I don't know why we all just don't move to Idaho where we belong.

[68 grunt]

Whadda great post, and I'm so happy I didn't fall for it!!! Thanks, I really enjoyed it! The responses were so enlightening.

[Snuffington]

Sigh... no matter how obvious you try to make it, satire is always taken deadly serious by far too many people. You have my sympathies.

[Twodees]

I haven't been subject to withholding tax for most of my life either. The point everyone is trying to make to you is that when the federal government is eating over 40% of the GNP and with at least two other levels of government adding taxes to the mix, most of us spend around half of our income on taxes.

If you can't see it, at least don't call those who can "dolts". I'll take your comments for what they're worth, realizing that what passes for a conservative in California would usually be a flaming liberal where I live.

[Snuffington]

Discouraging because people tend to knee jerk rather than to absorb and reflect. That may be a characteristic of the cyber world; especially those who have not had much conventional education or read books.

I'm not sure about education or reading books, but you're right. Blind gullibility is a characteristic of the cyber-world. Rather discouraging to see people who's opinion you want to respect blurt out opinions and insults in a way that makes their own words turn them into bufoons.

[A CA Guy]

Someone suggested I was a dolt for not seeing the 50% and I said the dolt would be the one paying near 50%.
There are a lot of fees for service and so-called hidden taxes in products out there for sure.
I 100% agree that rates are high. But my statement was that there is no reason to pay the highest rates, that you can use current laws to pay less.
I of course agree that rates are very high.
Earlier in #141 I think I expressed that also.
When you lower rates you cause people to want to work harder because the rewards for themselves are higher.
Reagan's lower rates doubled the revenue to the treasury.

The death tax will probably surpass the income tax in the next twenty years as massive amounts of wealth changes hands after death by the way.

[A CA Guy]

Ann Coulter in a recent interview a day or so ago also addressed this subject directly concerning the Libertarians.

GOPUSA: Libertarian purists seem to oppose even basic immigration reforms. And many don't want to make big expenditures on the ''war on terrorism''. Are they fully cognizant of the dangers presented by terrorism?

AC: No. ''Purist'' Libertarians take spiteful Anti-American positions in the hopes that someone someday will invite them to a pot party. The only way to get the holier-than-thou Libertarians behind the war on terrorism is to remind them that Muslims oppose the legalization of marijuana.

[thepitts]

disgusting.

[Dan from Michigan]

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.

The 1st amendment is 200 years old...the 2nd amendment was back when people had to hunt...damn that constitution...
What a stupid assed reason by a stupid assed 'journalist'.

. The few individuals who are not seem to be those who are clinging too tightly to their precious Constitution.

It's the law. Tough s**t. If you don't like it, move to a better country for freedom grabbers like you.

They refuse to give up even the smallest right, when doing so might mean the difference between victory and defeat
Can someone tell me what in the hell can secret searches do in this 'war'(CONGRESS declares war) to help victory????

These people, whether they realize it or not, are the terrorists' strongest allies in this war.
BS. If we lose freedoms, the terrorists win.

Any attempt to detract from the plans of our president and his administration is tantamount to treason.

Treason, huh. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!

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. Silenced huh. Hey tough guy, silence me!!!

*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.

Bwhahahah. I found that when I clicked on the link. I was about ready to punch out my computer reading this stuff.

[A CA Guy]

So you are saying you would rather there had been 3000 amendments to the Constitution rather than the Legislature and Bench interpreting the same law different for each generation.
That is a valid point. But the Government would remain the same predatory animal if you went with your purists view, for there would be all the amendments needed to do what is done by the Government today.
I think the form would be different, but the outcome would remain the same.

[Texasforever]

think I'll stick with Franklin.

Would you stick with Frankin on this?

There never was a good war or a bad peace
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

[Dan from Michigan]

What is it about Americans being protected from sick Islamist killers bothers you anti-government whiners so much?

OK. How in the blue hell can giving up our freedoms protect us from these Islamic Fundamentalist jerks. Explain that one to me.

I'll protect myself and my family, thank you.