Of Security and Independence
There can be no Independece without Security. That should well be the Republican creed. As regular as metamusal any time a Cowardly Elephant is confronted with the loss of freedoms in the name of Holy Security the retort comes.
The false dichotomy sickens. You can just see the pasty little twerps spouting the well rehearsed line. They deliver... then cross their spindly arms and give that don't-I-sound-clever smirk. The same one used by Michelle Malkin, and everyone else who says something they read but never actually thought about.
How about we examine it?
When Franklin spoke about those who would trade one for the other, he was talking about those unwilling to provide for themselves.
Anywhere something exists, there is a provider. Security is no different. It can be provided by a third party, a family, or the state. It can come in many forms from many institutions. It can also be provided by the individual himself.
Whoever provides the security is the master. Who ever is protected, is the slave. In feudal times Lords provided protection for their serfs. We are no different today.
The only one who is free is the one who provides security for himself. Those who seek security from the government are shackling themselves, and for them I have nothing but contempt.
Whenver you sede power to an authority, you depend on that authority to protect you. You therefore become a slave. The Bible calls the debtor a slave to the lender. This is similar, but much more drastic.
I don't want state sponsored security. I just want to be left alone. I can protect myself. I do protect myself. I am less conserned about some mad muslim dynobomber than I am of the boogie man... so before you knock on my door and tell me how scary the terrorists are... bend over and grab your ankles... I want to make sure my boot's got a clear shot.
You support the Partiot Act? Then you're a loathsome little coward, unfit for responsible free society. Move to France.
Oh... and yeah... it's good to be back.