Slaves to George W. Bush and the Republican Party

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jan 4, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Patrick Henry Today: "Give Me Security, Anything But Death!"

    By Chuck Baldwin

    Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon

    January 4, 2006 Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was one of America's greatest Founding Fathers. In fact, he was the most famous orator of the American Revolution. He was admitted to the bar in 1760, served as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, the Virginia Patriotic Convention, the First Continental Congress, the Virginia Legislature, and the Virginia Ratification Convention, and was Virginia's first Governor.
    Patrick Henry's fiery speech delivered on March 23, 1775 in St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia was the catalyst for the heroic stand taken by American patriots at Lexington and Concord, where America's fight for independence began. Perhaps no man was more influential in sounding the clarion call for freedom than Patrick Henry.

    In his famous speech, Henry shouted, "What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

    Compare the spirit of Patrick Henry with the spirit of modern day conservatives. What do we hear from them? What is their clarion call?

    The battle-cry (or should I say, surrender-cry) of the modern day conservative is, "Give me security, anything but death!" Yes, it seems that to most conservatives today, life and peace are willingly purchased with the price of chains and slavery! Just look at how eager and willing they are to accept abridgements and usurpations of our constitutional liberties.

    All over America, conservatives, including Christian conservatives, defend President Bush's decisions to abuse the power of his office and ignore the rule of law by spying on Americans without warrants and ignoring the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). They defend him as he unabashedly calls for greater power and promises to continue to ignore basic liberties. Such conduct is both unconscionable and unforgivable!

    That America is "at war" is no excuse for President Bush (or any president) to violate his oath of office and trample the rights and freedoms of the American people! And anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the first thing about America!

    Since when did conservatives forget their history and heritage? When did they decide that security was more valuable than liberty? When did they lose their love for freedom and loyalty to our Constitution? When? When George W. Bush became president. That's when.

    Ever since Bush was elected, conservatives have been capitulating and compromising basic American values to the point that they have become slaves! Yes, slaves. Slaves to the Republican Party! Slaves to George W. Bush! Slaves to security! Slaves to their own ambitions and comforts!

    America has always stood for liberty! All nations promise security, but America has only promised freedom. A bird in a cage is secure, but it is not free. George W. Bush wants to put America in a cage. And, unfortunately, most conservatives seem fine with that.

    Shame on us! Shame on us conservatives! We sully the memories and stain the honor of our forebears!

    Listen again to the words of America's founders. Hear again their cries for freedom. Hear George Washington when he said, "The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet than live on his knees."

    Hear Samuel Adams when he declared, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

    Listen to Benjamin Franklin when he said, "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Hear Patrick Henry one more time, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

    There is more to life than living! There is more to being an American than being secure! Patrick Henry understood that.

    Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

    Please visit Chuck's web site at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com .
     
  2. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The continued employment of the quotes from our founders in this situation is laughable. They were not talking about a president or a government. They were trying to insight the colonist to revolution. The quotes don't apply, unless you don't know your history.
     
  3. Brother James

    Brother James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chuck is on the mark with this piece!
     
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baldwin sacrifices the truth for sounding good. What he ignores is that it is one of the duties of government to provide security against death, to protect us from our enemies. As I understand, the phone conversations are targeted toward those identified as enemies. Enemies who have already attacked our country, and killed Americans. To compare the threat to which Patrick Henry was responding, Great Britain's active subjugation, by armed troops, of American self-government, with active defense of our nation against declared enemies is dishonest.

    I am neither in a cage nor on my knees, as the Brits were seeking to bring America. The goal is to protect Americans from future attack. There is nothing ignoble or dishonorable in that goal. Were innocent conversations between Americans monitored? Were those conversations used to punish any Americans for anything unrelated to terrorism? Were they used to punish anyone? There may have been, I must confess to being ignorant of much of the details but I suspect that much of the current outrage is based on the same ignorance.
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Much ado about nothing. [​IMG]
     
  6. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they were only using wiretaps to monitor calls related to the terrorist then I would say "Much ado about nothing", but with the numerous reports of wiretaps being used to monitor US citizens who are not tied to the terrorist, just because they are liberal anti-war groups the administration doesn't like, I believe we do have a reason to request an investigation to make sure no laws or constitutional rights have been violated. If these reports turn out to be false, and the administration is not using wiretaps against US citizens, then that is great. If the reports are true and they are illegally monitoring US citizens without a warrant, then it needs to be stopped. We can have these "war powers" given to the administration to be passed on to Hillary in 2008.
     
  7. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    Great to hear from you!

    I absolutely agree with you that if this is being used to target liberal anti war groups, that is wrong. It is, in fact, chilling. Much as I may hold such groups to be contemptible, they should not be intimidated for disagreeing with the war. Where we might disagree is that even if it is American citizens whose connections with terrorists are being exposed, then I'm all for the wiretaps. I would repeat a very real concern that this be investigated without jeopardizing a valuable, and perhaps subsquently determined to be legal, investigative tool. I believe that if this must be reviewed and investigated by a Congressional committee that it must be done in closed, executive, session.
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have a problem using wiretaps to monitor American citizens who are suspected to have connections with the terrorists, I believe the administration does need to do the proper paperwork to get the warrant for these citizens. The law even allows them to get the warrant after the wiretaping has begun so they don't miss an opportunity to find and stop a terrorist. Any US citizen who is found to be connected to the terrorist needs to have their US citizenship revoked, and they need to be tried for treason! If they would start limiting immigration and getting rid of the weak immigration policies they have, they wouldn't be inviting as many terrorist into the country to begin with.

    We need to be carefull when giving the government broad "war powers". They won't always consider the Islamic groups to be the terrorist, one day they will target the Christians, we don't want to give them the ammo to attack us.

    If they ever accomplish doing away with the Constitution completely and giving the POTUS unlimited power, they will make that office look pretty attractive to the future Antichrist.
     
  9. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    The law even allows them to get the warrant after the wiretaping has begun so they don't miss an opportunity to find and stop a terrorist.

    Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

    Any US citizen who is found to be connected to the terrorist needs to have their US citizenship revoked, and they need to be tried for treason!

    Amen, and then shot.

    We need to be careful when giving the government broad "war powers". They won't always consider the Islamic groups to be the terrorist, one day they will target the Christians, we don't want to give them the ammo to attack us.

    It's certainly an understandable concern. My only worry is that if there is wiretapping that should be done but a warrant, in fact, can't be obtained in time to get the surveillance done.
     
  10. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The law allows the wiretapping to be done at least 72 hours before obtaining the warrant, in some cases it may even allow more time. The problem I have is that the Bush administration has said that they don't believe they are required to get a warrant at all, even if the wiretapping is used on a US citizen, all in the name of security and the "war on terror".

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
    --James Madison
     
  11. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    Do you know what the basis of the Bush Administration contention is?
     
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Finally, JGrubbs, a voice of reason & knowledge reappears, and waketh me from slumber.

    What PROOF do we have that it was against anti-war groups - none. All so far is here say. Correct?
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    LE,

    Exactly! But it sure does make great political smear for the hate Bush crowd.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    There have been numerous reports from different sources, including some FBI documents that show that they have used wiretaps on groups like PETA, anti-war groups, even a report of monitoring of some Quakers. These reports need to be investigated and if proven to be false, then so be it, but if proven to be true, then the administration needs to be found guily of violating the US Constitution.
     
  15. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's see them.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  16. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Bush has already admitted spying on anti-war groups including about a dozen Quakers in Florida all of whom were in their 60's or above.

    Why is it that Americans agaigst ANY war are always called "liberals." Do you actually believe that all wars are just? I would call them patriots or perhaps Christians.
     
  17. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
  18. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush admitted to spying on groups and people who had nothing to do with terrorists groups? Let's see that evidence, please.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I agree with Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I haven't lost a single liberty as the result of George Bush being president. Anyone, other than a criminal or terrorist, who says he has will have to show proof or stand accused as a liar. :D :D :D
     
  20. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?


    Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups
    By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit
    Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2005
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

    WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
    A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.
    “This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.
    “This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”
    The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.
    “I think Americans should be concerned that the military, in fact, has reached too far,” says NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin.

    (Cont.)
     

Share This Page

Loading...