What have we become?

In response to the comment below:


The nation of "Give me Liberty or give me death" has become a nation willing to sell its remaining remnants of Liberty for supposed security.

To think, men such as Patrick Henry risked their necks by making bold statements and signing declarations; men who desired Liberty to such a degree that they were willing to leave the security of the bosom of the most powerful country on Earth in order to strike out on their own, against the world and its evil empires.

Men who threw off the King's yoke of oppression, a yoke that was nothing compared to the levels of taxation and intrusion which we suffer today: "(A) long train of abuses and usurpations." Today, we cheer presidents who create "a multitude of New Offices, and sen(d) hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." But, we are safe. Yea, we are safe from Liberty.

It now appears that we have become a nation that fears the responsibilities of Liberty; a nation that readily sells its past to the next demagogue promising a few more moments of supposed security. Yet, our Founders never considered security over Liberty.

In fact, this nation was founded by those who believed Liberty was more important than life itself. Men such as Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither." Once again, it appears that his pronouncement will be proven true.

Pick a nation that has fallen for a despot -- any nation, in any era -- and the key to the transfer from Liberty to slavery was indeed the populist call of security.

In addition, writers such as the one below are willing to loosen their grip on Liberty -- oh, they are willing to give Her away to those who claim allegiance to the Republican Party. Yet, any increase in centralized power will end up in the hands of the next Clinton/Obama White House. And when that happens, don't cry the evils of government. We will have done it to ourselves.

-- Jim Fedako

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A link for Cheney and others who have never read t...":

Let’s look more closely at the issue and frame it in its real context; and then contrast its implications against your charges:

Cheney has claimed for the last four years that his office is not fully part of the administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies’ handling of classified national security information, which the National Archives claims demonstrates a failure of proper security safeguards and jeopardizes the nation’s most sensitive security secrets.

Is his a specious argument? Yes. Harmful? Hardly. In fact, he is dutifully ensuring that national secrets that would otherwise be leaked and used by our enemies—both foreign and domestic (think “New York Times”, “ACLU”, congressional Democrats, and other enemies of the State)—remain secret. This is not speculation—it’s fact, demonstrable and supported by the many leaks of highly classified information we have seen in the last several years for which we have paid an added, unnecessary price in American and Iraqi lives.

And, of course, we all know how well the National Archives protected Top Secret reports, analyses, memoranda and other documents from Sandy Berger, who left guarded, “highly secure ‘SKIFs’ ” with dozens of original documents stuffed in his underwear and socks that were ultimately left underneath a trailer at a construction site (and subsequently lost) or destroyed.

But at its base, your charge is as static and blindly academic as those you rail against over and over on this blog. Economics, for example—using your favorite topic, is highly dynamic and any serious analysis must take into account behavior, which tends to foil positions that are staked purely in academia. The tenets that apply to economic theory also hold true in this—and any—argument, and you ignore them. You argue (academically) on powers and limits enumerated in the Constitution and do not recognize or account for the motives and behaviors of the politicians and bureaucrats who are the practitioners and stewards of those powers (the “behavior” variables). As we have seen time and again these last several years—regardless of what you think of the Iraq War—the administration’s critics in congress and in the media have released (in the case of Sandy Berger, destroyed) highly classified intelligence that has proven devastating to the national security of the Unites States, in general, and to the war effort in particular.

Seriously—who do you trust more with national security secrets? The administration or the New York Times? Because your argument ignores the dynamic of the equation—the “either/OR”—I have provided the “OR” here. To deny that at least some of the secrets Cheney is safeguarding (correct terminology) will not wind up in the press—resulting in yet more additional, unneeded America blood spilled—is to be as intellectually vapid or dishonest as the ideologues you so often criticize. This is not hysteria, but a conclusion supported by recent, historical fact.

Is Cheney bending the Constitution? Probably. Executive or Legislative-Constitutional infidelity is hardly a new phenomenon—it’s de rigueur in Washington, and always has been. And executive orders are not ratifications of the Constitution—they are presidential edicts that are often frivolous, and existing ones are routinely discarded as first official acts of incoming presidents. The constitutionality of the Executive Order has long been suspect, but is honored and tolerated by each of the Parties because they both rely on them. So much for hardwiring the fidelity of the Executive Order to the Constitution. By the way—which EO is Cheney violating? Is it 13129? No, that would be the EO to assassinate bin Laden…How about 13011? Nah….that’s the one Bill Clinton signed that created the CIA rendition program. Try finding support for those in the Constitution. I think you get my point.

Of what academic consequence is all of this? It offends the sensibilities of Paulites, Lefties and academics. Of what practical consequence is all of this? It ensures that vital national security data does not get in the hands of a press, activist congress and affiliated groups that have dedicated themselves to destroying the war effort—even if it puts our nation at risk.

I side with offending the sensibilities of the Constitutionalists on this one. As the Founding Fathers would understandably be aghast at some of the current conduct of the Executive Branch, I suspect they’d be terrified to witness the kind of official and sponsored sedition their document has been perverted to protect.

Take your pick.

Note:

1. I don't trust either party; neither should you.
2. Read a little from the Austrian School of Economics, not simply the neoclassical/Keynesian nonsense taught by tax-funded professors.
3. Read some Mises and Hayek to realize that you were not the first to discover the true motives of politicians and bureaucrats. Read what the Bible has to say regarding the desire for kings.
4. If you continue to accept the concept of a small-c constitution -- one that bends with the wind -- be willing to accept all that comes with it.
5. When Clinton/Obama play these types of tricks, please don't cry foul. What goes around, comes around -- and usually to a higher degree.
6. Don't play Republican Congressman and claim that only the Democrats raise taxes and spend our children into tax slavery. The Republicans doubled the amount of debt that my children -- and your children -- will have to bear. Yet, I'm certain that you gave THEM a pass.
7. Stand up for Liberty. Stand alongside The Founders and be terrified of the perversion of the Declaration and Constitution. Have a backbone and realize that this nation was founded by those who wanted to be protected FROM government, not BY government.
8. Or, simply allow things to continue on their current path. Feel safe and sound. Bush and Cheney hold the crystal ball, and can divine the future -- they are omniscient. They are keeping you safe, as they have only good intentions for the removal of your freedoms.
9. Rest assured that The Founders lived in a different period, a period where men would stand up against the encroachment of government. You, on the other hand, were born into an era where men seek the warmth of government to ease any fear; real or perceived.
10. Finally, you can explain to your children how you sold their birthright to the political hacks; all for the dream of security. I'm certain that your children will be proud of you as they work to pay the debts for bonds on which we have forged their signature. "Yes, dear children, those are chains. But, at least the iron links will keep you safe."