Liberty or Security

Liberty or Security

by

Anonymous

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A Benjamin Franklin quote, or so some believe. And we moan about the intrusiveness of the TSA, yet demand to be protected.

Since when did the benefits of our unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come without risks? And when we forgo the “risks” we are surrendering the “freedom” associated with those “rights.” What is the “right to life” if I no longer embrace the liability and answerability for that treasure? This would include personal, individual subjective moral responsibility and accountability. Liberty is an unalienable right which carries the burden of stewardship. Security is a luxury, once tasted it becomes a nihilistic necessity, much like entitlements.

When pondering, while analyzing the mission and goal of the TSA, one might consider that on July 15, 2008 Obama is reported to have indicated a desire for a “unionized civilian national security force.” “Are we talking about creating a police state here? The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic, “transparent” (about its real mission and goal) but out in the open, security force bigger and more expensive than that?” A recent report indicates the TSA has hired some 110,000; many have quit or were fired.

“Who will Obama appoint to administer this new “civilian national security force”? Janet Napolitano one says? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?” And there we have the TSA, an appeasement to terrorism. As we give up infinitesimal pieces of that treasure called liberty, at what point do we lose the ability to reverse this march to…possibly slavery? Those in North Korea, dying from hunger, lost that option, surrendering liberty for tyranny, many years ago. Is it possible in America? Absolutely! But then there are deniers. Read “Denial of the Truth” by Michael Cochrane.

The Presidential election of 2008 was about the economy, white guilt and a profound gutter “hate” for President George Bush. The mid term election of November 2010 was about the economy, buyer’s remorse, unemployment, Congress and the Senate “not” listening to the people, draconian healthcare mandates, creeping socialism, unprincipled capitalism in the stock market, unethical banks, government co-opted auto companies, corrupted, avarice inclined and “insidious power” lusting unions, and unwise financial regulations. Did we leave out the “rich?” And none of the about is totally “on point.”

The real honest evaluation of the times that try our souls is that we, the electorate, the Constitutional “We the People” are recognizably self-centered, often supercilious, politically uninformed and unwilling to shoulder any pain, discomfort, unwilling to give up any entitlements, averse to sacrifice just about anything for the good of our country, a better life for our children, their grandchildren and the future of our beloved Republic, these United (not anymore) States of America. “Ask not what your country can do for you….” an utterance which must have been a divine inspiration from the very soul of our material and spiritual survival as a noble nation.

What ever happened to that patriotism that has totally consumes those heroes that stand on the walls of our existence against a malevolent opposition and champion a survival of the fittest? And they would joyfully, eagerly, and immediately downsize in that instance that they are no longer needed. However, as yet, no rational person will concede that…they are “no longer needed.”

There is a famous scene in “a Few Good Men “where Colonel Jessep says

“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

War is Darwinism at its most efficient and the rules are innately commonsensical. Do not get “hooked” on the “macho” of the message for the “wisdom” is in the “weeds.” We cannot allow the anger or passion of any semantic delivery, or intel-hijacking, to spoil the soul wrenching argument on “national security”, no matter what your sensitivities, beliefs or definition.

When we fail to recognize that those we elect are no longer our leaders if they do not represent us, espouse our mandates and govern from the foundation of the electorates’ values and principles, we cease to be a noble nation, no longer a great nation, no longer a Republic. And we have squandered one of the greatest gifts that could have ever been given to a culture.

Liberty and security can coexist only if security is subordinated. And one would have thought that PFC Bradley Manning’s actions were treason, as they were, while remarkably Berkley, CA, wants to declare him a hero. Have the Nazi youth camp mentality returned to America, circa 1928 to 1945? But like the actions of the TSA where chaos is yet to visit-remember-those who give up liberty for security deserve neither. In Manning’s own words (does this not sound like Julian Paul Assange?);

“Hilary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available in a searchable format to the public. Everywhere there is a U.S. post there is a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. It is open diplomacy, worldwide anarchy in CSV (computer file) format. It’s Climategate (is there a scam revealed here?) with a global scope and breathtaking depth. It is beautiful and horrifying.”

The “risk” element here is irrational. PFC Bradley Manning and Julian Paul Assange mistake bureaucratic squabbles for combat, an easy error for Assange, a blunder for Manning. There is an argument for honorable, ethical, just and moral confidentiality where national security is concerned such as protecting our commercial and military treasures. And there is an argument against malevolent corrupted national secrecy framed by the Daniel Ellsberg Papers.

But Wikileaks is not what it seems. It is chaos, first a flood of Wikileaks secret documents, then raising College tuition riots in England, socialistic propaganda cover, progressive reverse political psychology. There is sex, scandal, secrets, uber-progressives, misdirection with ingrained and cultivating that essential crack in the firewall government security and integrity, mistrust.

Julian Paul Assange, the apparent product of a dysfunctional childhood, holds ideas relating to freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative journalism that ingratiate him to the conspiratorial mind set. Julian reveals a twisted and tortured self, self proclaimed as judge and jury, in his own words, a vigilante concept rejected by fair minded America long ago,

“the more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. … Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.”

It will be, if not already manifest, apparent without proof or argument, “an axiomatic truth”; this reality will be self-evident, that “the globe, companies and governments must adapt to a world where no secret is safe.”

National security must have a privileged position within the confines of our Constitution. Likewise, corrupt, undisciplined, wronged headed, treacherous politicians and statesmen must not be allowed to hide behind this doctrine. Those who have the courage of their convictions must be as ready, as our founding fathers, to let “truth” be heard, pay the price, or collect the reward, and ultimately, if required, right or wrong, let the courts decide.

Do we believe, or have any beliefs, for which this generation, our generations, you and I, with the exclusion of our brave heroes, living their beliefs, undeniable proof, in harms way, in the armed services, for which we are willing to die for?“..With firm reliance on Devine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Pray tell do we now know what this….

“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide…”

means with any moral certainly? Humanity has no significance at all if separated from faith (a strong belief in a spiritual destiny), hope (expectations for something better, happiness) and charity (generosity and helpfulness toward the less fortunate).

Those who listen to George (Schwartz) Soros are praised as followers of the magnificent (pecuniary) fund guru, they are enlightened acolytes of a famous financial speculator, they are students of a classic hedge fund genius and admirers of a significant philanthropist. Well, let them continue to think, to paint, to define us as stupid at their own risk.  Reread the Blogs “Part 1, 2 & 3 Glenn Beck Paints George Soros as ‘The Puppet master””. Do not accept anyone’s’ word for anything, do your own research!

Remember, character is defined as doing what is “right” by conscience, (contemporary legal doctrine is not the issue else revisit slavery), whether in public or private, when everybody or nobody is looking or listening. Again we run into the “right” to privacy and a “free press” and the “freedom” to cause “harm.” (Remember, “fire” in a crowded theater?)

And while we focus on riots in England, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and heading our way soon, is Soros involved? One need not dig too deep. There is no conspiracy here, just a herd mentality, the scientific engineering of consent (or is it dissent?). Can we join with the mind set that reverberates from the words of Nigel Forage to the European Parliament 11/25/2010 on the disparaging power of nefarious diplomacy, the destruction of liberty by globalization, to wit

“When you yourself Mr. van Rompuy say that the euro has brought us stability, I supposed I could applaud you for having a sense of humor, but isn’t this really just the bunker [or banker?] mentality. Your fanaticism is out in the open. You talk about the fact that it was a lie to believe that the nation state could exist in the 21st century globalize world. Well, that may be true in the case of Belgium who haven’t had a government for 6 months, but for the rest of us, right across every member state in this union (the Euro Union?), increasingly people are saying, “We don’t want that flag, we don’t want the anthem, we don’t want this political class, we want the whole thing consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Read the whole text http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2010/11/nigel-farage-again.html. And it recalls to mind that possibly “Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.),” a doctrine of military strategy is rapidly being replaced by “Mutually assured Economic Destruction”, a doctrine of global economic strategy.

Every Christmas is special and not just a “holiday.” For those who have had family that have sacrificed their lives in defense (armed services) of Liberty, nothing but infinite gratitude and unending prayers will suffice. For those with loved ones in harms way, may we learn to love, honor, appreciate and cherish the gift of their commitment. For the rest, please know that these heroes are defending nothing more than our right to agree that we can “peacefully” disagree. It seems oxymoronic.  It is embarrassing, disgraceful and unforgivable, indefensible the 1.4% pay increase to our military this year along side the wasted Stimulus, TARP and Omnibus bills. Have we no shame?

Meditate on the coming of Christmas, read the blog “When Christmas Was the Holiday”, and then in a moment of fallibility recognize our imperfections, we crucified the man that gave us this indelible moment of hope, went further and assassinated the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln et al and may have forgotten that young man, Nathan Hale, who once said “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.” Few are capable of fathoming that emotion which requires, no, demands the courage of convictions. And when we do not have the courage of our convictions we have neither “courage” nor “conviction.”

Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with saying, “Great minds discuss ideas. …..” Try and wrap the mind around the ideas about “liberty”, demands for “security” so transparent it is hidden under this quasi soliloquy of Colonel Jessep, his, a blatant disregard for the courtroom audience, marginally anchored in an aberrational view of personal honor, code, and loyalty. As in unconditional love, one might suggest unconditional honor, code, and loyalty. Does that calm, confuse or incite?

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said it best

“A nation which has forgotten the quality of “courage” (as in courage of conviction) which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today – and in fact we have forgotten.”

Now most will assign that “courage” singularly to our public servants but that would be a gross, a monumentally supercilious observation, a transfer of personal individual responsibility and accountability from ourselves to those who erroneously we feel consoled to blame, for success or failure, of the policies of this noble nation. When we elect individuals to “save us”, champion our disillusionments, forward unsustainable perks, benefits, entitlement, pork and redistributed wealth, we, not they, have lost our way. But then who needs “courage” if security is assured?

When we recognize that value and principles precede performance and results, when we embrace shared pain, anxiety, hard times and sacrifice for the mission and goal of a principled existence, when we meditate and embrace the sacred ethical issues, the journey is back to our moral grass roots.

“If you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, all they are left with is nationalism and violence.” Wikileaks is a tool for those who hate our Republic not the moral outrage of Patriots.

There is, too often, no need to talk oneself into the “right” decision. It is often intuitive, a gift of those pesky unalienable “rights.” Never surrender control of the media or the military. “Insidious control” is a contest for immoral power. “Left” and “Right” ideologies can find common ground in the “truth.”

President Ronald Reagan opined that as government expands liberty contracts. Liberty lost is not recovered. “We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation, crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce. This must stop.”

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison. He most assuredly was referring to radical Progressivism.

And we are left with “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” As always, embrace what fits and discard the rest. Trust your own intuition.

Share This Post

One Response to "Liberty or Security"

  1. A great military is a great thing. But, it is good to question what they do. Is drumming up hatred of the world around us by being in their lands in America’s best interest?

    Or is it better served by protecting the homeland. Here. At home?

    Liberty or Security. Most surely, pick liberty. A few might die in the process, but it sets a principled example for the world.

    A world ran by the actual or threatened use of force will not get much farther much longer.

    Reply

Post Comment