Give me Liberty or give me death!
In recent conversations between friends; Americans with opinions that have value, we were discussing subjects related to the NSA's gathering of personal data without probable cause, as our Fourth Amendment requires: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We also discussed the question of whether Edward Snowden might be considered a patriot, or a criminal for divulging the fact that the NSA was gathering all this personal data.
As the conversation progressed, my friend and fellow patriot, Jim Rachels, made some very valid points that I thought should be republished. The original thread can be read at:
Jim Rachels wrote the following:
Jim Rachels wrote the following:
"I believe our country has lost sight of what is important. We have been told,
and the country largely believes, that “life” is the most important thing we
have and must be preserved at all costs. I disagree. We have fought many wars
with the intent of preserving “liberty.” We have repeatedly demonstrated in our
history that Liberty is the most valuable thing we have and it must be
preserved at all costs… including at the cost of our very lives. So, given our
commitment to liberty made by our founding fathers, our military, our national
heroes, etc… I am at a loss as to why the public has accepted the offer made by
the government that it can provide security to our lives in exchange for our
liberties.
Personally, I would MUCH rather live at a greater risk to my life,
but with my liberty preserved. I remember the cry of Patrick Henry and it means
something to me: “… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as
for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry also said, “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of
hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the
song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts... For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know
the worst, and to provide for it.”
Another Patrick Henry goodie:
Another Patrick Henry goodie:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the
government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to
restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
And another:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
The Constitution no longer seems to restrain the government… today, the government runs amuck and tramples our liberties in the process. The Eric Snowden case illuminates this fact. The fact that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, can admittedly provide testimony to Congress that is the “least most untruthful” when he directly lied about the NSA gathering intel on millions of Americans speaks volumes about our government concealing its transactions. http://www.policymic.com/articles/52639/...ing/677657
Chris Christie said recently that the libertarian trend in both political parties is “dangerous!” Dangerous?? Really Mr. Christie? Apparently, CC had forgotten that our nation was born of libertarian ideals and an inherent distrust of government (see the above quote about the Constitution restraining government). Maybe CC can explain to all of the dead patriots in our history who gave their lives… not primarily to protect the lives of Americans… but to preserve liberty for Americans. Mr. Christie seems to endorse the fact that we can live quite secure in the safety of our lives should we choose to don the chains of slavery. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/26/436...trend.html
Chris Christie’s short sightedness is exactly why I say that we have already lost the war on terror. It was NEVER the intention of any 9/11 terrorist to kill all Americans… their intention was to disrupt our way of life and destroy our liberties. Given the billions of dollars spent to date and the atrocious degradation of our liberties since 2001, the terrorists have obviously won.
For the first time in American history, we as a nation have declared that we value our lives more than we value our liberty. We are, therefore, no longer the country that was founded over 200 years ago. We are no longer the shining city upon a hill as described by Ronald Reagan. We no longer set the example for freedom loving people across the world to emulate. Thanks to cowards like Chris Christie… we are no longer America.
_____________________
And another:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
The Constitution no longer seems to restrain the government… today, the government runs amuck and tramples our liberties in the process. The Eric Snowden case illuminates this fact. The fact that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, can admittedly provide testimony to Congress that is the “least most untruthful” when he directly lied about the NSA gathering intel on millions of Americans speaks volumes about our government concealing its transactions. http://www.policymic.com/articles/52639/...ing/677657
Chris Christie said recently that the libertarian trend in both political parties is “dangerous!” Dangerous?? Really Mr. Christie? Apparently, CC had forgotten that our nation was born of libertarian ideals and an inherent distrust of government (see the above quote about the Constitution restraining government). Maybe CC can explain to all of the dead patriots in our history who gave their lives… not primarily to protect the lives of Americans… but to preserve liberty for Americans. Mr. Christie seems to endorse the fact that we can live quite secure in the safety of our lives should we choose to don the chains of slavery. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/26/436...trend.html
Chris Christie’s short sightedness is exactly why I say that we have already lost the war on terror. It was NEVER the intention of any 9/11 terrorist to kill all Americans… their intention was to disrupt our way of life and destroy our liberties. Given the billions of dollars spent to date and the atrocious degradation of our liberties since 2001, the terrorists have obviously won.
For the first time in American history, we as a nation have declared that we value our lives more than we value our liberty. We are, therefore, no longer the country that was founded over 200 years ago. We are no longer the shining city upon a hill as described by Ronald Reagan. We no longer set the example for freedom loving people across the world to emulate. Thanks to cowards like Chris Christie… we are no longer America.
_____________________
Another differing view, but one just as valid is the following, written by, Martin Ligbill:
"My interpretation of what you’re saying is that when a
government has conditioned the people to value life over liberty it has
successfully devolved the free and independent citizen of the nation to a slave
of the state.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our Founding Fathers seem to believe we had a right to both life and liberty (and to pursue happiness). I wonder if all three held equal position, or if the order of those "inalienable Rights" suggests that one may be of higher value, even slightly. I don't question Patrick Henry's honor and love of liberty or his willingness to sacrifice his life for them, but I wonder if he or others of like-mindedness, would be so brave with the life of someone else. I wonder if those who so valiantly fell on a sword for liberty sake would be willing to pay that price for liberty if the currency was the blood of their own child.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our Founding Fathers seem to believe we had a right to both life and liberty (and to pursue happiness). I wonder if all three held equal position, or if the order of those "inalienable Rights" suggests that one may be of higher value, even slightly. I don't question Patrick Henry's honor and love of liberty or his willingness to sacrifice his life for them, but I wonder if he or others of like-mindedness, would be so brave with the life of someone else. I wonder if those who so valiantly fell on a sword for liberty sake would be willing to pay that price for liberty if the currency was the blood of their own child.
I'd like to believe that I could surrender my being to preserve liberty if my
own life was the lone sacrifice. However, I wonder if I could muster the same
strength of conviction if that sacrifice was the life of my children. Would I
be condemned and called a coward if I was unwilling to see my children die to
see liberty survive? I understand [that] there are those who will argue that life as a
slave is no life at all, and I would not refute that sentiment, as I have no
point of reference. I guess it comes down to an internal struggle of
selfishness and shortsightedness.
_____________________________
I wrote the following:
"IMO, most do not see how much we have lost. I am probably older than anyone here... It doesn't make me wiser or more knowledgeable, but it does allow me to have seen where I, and America were as a kid, and where America is today.So many things have changed, some obviously good and some obviously, destructive. It's the destructive things that younger people aren't seeing, [and that] because they didn't know how it used to be; what we used to believe; how we thought about our country, our liberties, and our pursuits of happiness, and yes our lives.
So many books have been written, some I haven't read, but would like to, and many that I have. They speak of our history; some accurate, some very skewed. And while we raised our children, I watched (got highly involved as well [in many cases]) with how schools began to teach my children certain concepts that began to do away with nationalism, spiritual precepts, morals, etc., and those "old principles" about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And soon, they thought of it as ancient, and not [always] necessarily applicable. I tried to teach them how wrong that was. I think they all got it, in their own ways.
This discussion about whether life is more important than liberty is pertinent. I do understand how "life" over "liberty" has taken root. The argument that staying alive to fight another day, could be made though. And Martin makes a point; how far are we willing to go for liberty? Will we see our children sacrificed to secure our liberty? We're allegedly doing that now, by sending our sons and daughters to war. But the truth is, it isn't the same.
I do not believe we are sending our sons and daughters to war to secure our liberties. Since Vietnam, our sons, and brothers and fathers, and now our sisters and daughters, and our wives, are being sent to further the elite's agenda. We can say we are attempting to go straight to the lion's den and stop terrorism in its tracks -- over there, but are we? I really don't believe that is the goal anymore. Tell me how that is to secure either our lives or our liberty - I really want to know.
In the 1700s the fight was against a tyrannical regime that threatened us here, on our own lands. I realize the threat may originate elsewhere today, but I don't really think it does, anymore. The fight is here, against a tyranny of officials following the whims of an evil and selfish agenda.
I'd [also] like to say I'm brave enough to give my life for that fight, for my liberty instead of becoming a slave to their agenda, but as Martin put it, would I put that up before the life of my children? Not sure that I could, but then, I really don't have to make that choice, [hopefully] my children would fight along side!
_______________________________
"IMO, most do not see how much we have lost. I am probably older than anyone here... It doesn't make me wiser or more knowledgeable, but it does allow me to have seen where I, and America were as a kid, and where America is today.So many things have changed, some obviously good and some obviously, destructive. It's the destructive things that younger people aren't seeing, [and that] because they didn't know how it used to be; what we used to believe; how we thought about our country, our liberties, and our pursuits of happiness, and yes our lives.
So many books have been written, some I haven't read, but would like to, and many that I have. They speak of our history; some accurate, some very skewed. And while we raised our children, I watched (got highly involved as well [in many cases]) with how schools began to teach my children certain concepts that began to do away with nationalism, spiritual precepts, morals, etc., and those "old principles" about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And soon, they thought of it as ancient, and not [always] necessarily applicable. I tried to teach them how wrong that was. I think they all got it, in their own ways.
This discussion about whether life is more important than liberty is pertinent. I do understand how "life" over "liberty" has taken root. The argument that staying alive to fight another day, could be made though. And Martin makes a point; how far are we willing to go for liberty? Will we see our children sacrificed to secure our liberty? We're allegedly doing that now, by sending our sons and daughters to war. But the truth is, it isn't the same.
I do not believe we are sending our sons and daughters to war to secure our liberties. Since Vietnam, our sons, and brothers and fathers, and now our sisters and daughters, and our wives, are being sent to further the elite's agenda. We can say we are attempting to go straight to the lion's den and stop terrorism in its tracks -- over there, but are we? I really don't believe that is the goal anymore. Tell me how that is to secure either our lives or our liberty - I really want to know.
In the 1700s the fight was against a tyrannical regime that threatened us here, on our own lands. I realize the threat may originate elsewhere today, but I don't really think it does, anymore. The fight is here, against a tyranny of officials following the whims of an evil and selfish agenda.
I'd [also] like to say I'm brave enough to give my life for that fight, for my liberty instead of becoming a slave to their agenda, but as Martin put it, would I put that up before the life of my children? Not sure that I could, but then, I really don't have to make that choice, [hopefully] my children would fight along side!
_______________________________
posted by Deuke at 6:54 PM
<< Home