TERRY MOSHER
RAND PAUL
I can’t believe that I’m doing this. No way, no how would I think to agree with Rand Paul. But I am. At least I am partially.
Paul is putting up a fuss over the Patriot Act, which was conceived to protect ourselves against terrorist threats in the aftermath of 9/11. In so doing, the act infringed upon some of our liberties. So to protect our freedom we effectively limited some of our freedoms. And that is what disturbs Paul, and he is asking, and to this I agree, to have some discussion over the act as it speeds toward expiring on Monday.
In the Huffington Post, this was reported:
“Forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people,” Paul said in a statement Saturday that was first reported by Politico. “So tomorrow, I will force the expiration of the NBA illegal spy program.”
Perhaps in no time in our history have we been faced with such danger as exists now in the world. Before, wars were fully transparent. We could see the tanks and the troops roll and it was possible to mount our counterattack against the tanks and the troops.
But today, the attacks can some suddenly. A suicide bomber can be disguised as just another person in a church congregation and kill hundreds with the simple push of a button. No amount of tanks and troops can stop that from happening.
We are faced not only with an unidentified enemy within, but by the rising conventional threats of a rising economic and militarily embolden China and the silent march by the Russian government led by the ingenious and dangerous moves of Putin, a murderer capable of being at least the equal of Hitler.
The murky and dangerous slop that we call the Middle East, where most of the world’s oil reserves are, only adds to the threats we must constantly face.
So what must we do? Do we put an emotional and steel-like fence around our borders to keep out the stealth suicide bombers and retreat into our secured homes scared to venture far from our safety nets?
Or do we ask ourselves, Ok the world is more dangerous than ever and to protect ourselves should we allow the government some abuse of our freedoms in order to allow it to protect some of our freedoms and give us the ability to interact with the greater world out there?
I don’t know the answer, and either does Rand Paul. But its worth, as Paul suggests, discussion before we go too far with restriction of some of our freedoms. Maybe we can’t survive as a people unless we lived a more restricted life? Or maybe we don’t want to have our freedoms restricted and just take our chances?
As I sit here and think about it, I think that people everywhere would choose if they have the choice to have freedom to live as they please with some rules for social conduct that penalizes for misconduct.
And that is what we have in this country, for the most part. I’m sure that the continued racial problem does not fit that description fairly. The color of one’s skin has been cause for concern since day one, and continues to be a major problem. But even blacks who feel persecuted, with good reason, I would argue would agree that living here in America is better than living in, say, China or Russia.
So I’m going with the assumption that our founding fathers created if not the most perfect union at least one that is as close to perfection as has been conceived by humans. If that is so, and I think it is, then we should not tinker with it and allow ourselves to lose some of our basic freedoms in order to be safer from outside threats.
We must, I think, stand tall as a beacon of freedom so others can look at us and push to me more like us. Given a choice, as I have said, people will choose to have that freedom and if we can represent that goodness for them, we can be that beacon of strength and love for them, the world will eventually be safer.
Freedom, after all, is the enemy of the Putin’s of the world.
Be well pal.
Be careful out there.
Have a great day.
You are loved.