What is the price? Part 1

Over the next series of days and weeks, I intend to ask myself and anyone who will take a moment to listen a series of questions pertaining to our freedoms and our future.

How much will it cost to buy your principles?

What do you ask in return?

Is it a job?

Is it the security of your IRA or 401 k plan?

Is it the promise of conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court?

Will your convictions be purchased by material satisfaction, the trinkets and toys of our lives?

We believe in the Constitution and in our constitutional republic, or do we?

What does it mean to believe in something? Does it mean we give mental affirmation to the idea? Does it mean we accept the principles in general terms?

What are you willing to accept as a substitute for your freedom?

Are you willing to allow the government to monitor your bank account?

Can they record and question your purchases?

Are you willing to allow them open access to your home?

Can they record all your phone conversations?

Is it permissible for them to record your travels, your friendships and your leisure activities?

Here are some recent headlines.



http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/984882.html

An audit by the inspector general last year found that the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.
The new audit, which examines use of national security letters issued in 2006, "will identify issues similar to those in the report issued last March," Mueller said. The privacy abuse "predates the reforms we now have in place," he said.
"We are committed to ensuring that we not only get this right but maintain the vital trust of the American people," Mueller said.
National security letters, as outlined in the USA Patriot Act, are administrative subpoenas used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers without a judge's approval.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0514-07.htm


Homeland Security Department Used to Track Texas Democrats
by Glenn W. Smith

Republicans in Washington and Austin, Texas apparently used a Homeland Security Department agency to track Texas Democratic legislators who left the state to block passage of a GOP-backed Congressional redistricting bill.
This is the same Homeland Security Department that is supposed to be making America safe from foreign terrorists. It's the agency we were told would never be used for domestic political purposes.
But today's edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center, in Riverside, California, became involved in the Republican search for 51 Democratic state representatives who went to Ardmore, Oklahoma to break a quorum of the House and block action on the redistricting bill.
Here's what the Star-Telegram reported: "The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney." Laney is one of the Democrats who is fighting against the redistricting bill.
The newspaper said, "Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information because, (Republican House Speaker) Craddick said, it's how he determined that the Democrats were in Ardmore. 'We called someone, and they said they were going to track it. I have no idea how they tracked it down,' Craddick said. 'That's how we found them.'"
The Interdiction and Coordination center "falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department," the Star-Telegram reported.
Republican Craddick, at the request of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, is pushing a redistricting plan that would eliminate five Democrats from the U.S. Congress. Currently, the Texas delegation contains 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans.
While saying they "called someone," Craddick denied making calls to any federal agency, but DeLay confirmed that Republicans sought the assistance of federal law enforcement.
The action by the House Democrats, dubbed the "Heroes of the House" and the "Killer D's" (a reference to a similar quorum-busting action by Texas Senate Democrats in the late 1970s), has gained national attention. Their action has also received a surprising amount of support from Texas newspapers, which have criticized the deeply partisan actions of Texas Republicans.
Republican leaders in Texas and Washington are furious. They have called the Democrats, holed up in a Holiday Inn in Ardmore, "cowards" and "terrorists."
State troopers have followed the Democrats wives, parents and children. Troopers even staked out a hospital where one lawmaker's premature twins are being cared for. Staffers have been harassed. All this has happened after the location of the Democrats was known.



And it is no different for the other party. When the Democrats were in power here are some headlines:



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/hillary.today/

Hillary Clinton: 'This Is A Battle'
Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 27) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against President Bill Clinton.
She made the statement during an interview on NBC's "Today" show, where she was asked to comment on accusations and rumors that have caused a political uproar and even triggered speculation about the possibility of impeachment of the president.
"I do believe that this is a battle," the first lady said.
"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said.



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/14/hillary/

Hillary Clinton Questioned About FBI Files
Whitewater prosecutors grill the first lady at the White House
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 14) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was interviewed under oath today by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr about the circumstances behind the White House's gathering of hundreds of sensitive FBI background files on previous White House employees. An administration official says the interview lasted just 15 minutes.
White House spokesman Mike McCurry said the interview took place in the White House residence. Reading from a statement by White House Counsel Charles Ruff, McCurry said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the White House obtaining of FBI file information on former White House employees in 1993 and 1994.
In addition to Ruff, the Clinton's Whitewater lawyer David Kendall was also in the room during the interview. McCurry said when Mrs. Clinton was asked to be interviewed she voluntarily agreed, in keeping with the president's promise to cooperate fully with the independent counsel.
Reading from Ruff's statement, McCurry said, "As the president has previously announced, he and Mrs. Clinton are cooperating fully with the independent counsel. Mrs. Clinton voluntarily agreed when an interview was requested."
The White House statement also said the sworn testimony focused on "the acquisition in 1993-94 by the White House of certain FBI file information concerning former White House employees. Consistent with past practice, no further statements about the content of the interview will be made at this time."
Mrs. Clinton has said she knows nothing about the controversy or the hiring of Craig Livingstone, the former aide who headed the office that collected the sensitive FBI material.
The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee uncovered the White House's gathering of the FBI files in 1997. There was a short-lived uproar and Livingstone resigned from the administration.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/alexander.shtml


In the case known as "Filegate" Judicial Watch is representing plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by the White House employees of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton-Gore White House. The Clinton White House and the FBI are being sued under the federal Privacy Act, while the defendants Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone, Anthony Marceca and Hillary Clinton are being sued for common law tort of invasion of privacy."Filegate" consists of the over 900 FBI files which were illegally acquired by the Clinton-Gore White House and the misuse of other government files protected by The Privacy Act, in order to gather information to smear political adversaries and critics.Keep in mind that Chuck Colson spent seven months in prison for illegal possession of a single FBI file as part of the Watergate prosecutions.Sworn testimony of two Clinton-Gore White House whistleblowers showed that over 100,000 (and perhaps as many as 1,000,000) e-mails, in addition to about 500 hard drive cartridges, which contained incriminating evidence concerning Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate, Lewinsky and other Clinton scandals were tampered with.


So let me repeat my question.

How much of your freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of security?

The freedoms you give up today to fight the terrorists might well be turned against you depending on who is in power. You might be on the side of right today and on the side of suspicion next week.

If we give up our freedom in the name of security we will lose both.

I have heard the comments why should I care, I have nothing to hide.

My contention is not that I have anything to hide but I have much to lose.

Losing liberty is not a callous or trivial thing. To give over that which is mine, to transfer it, if you will to the control and pleasure of Government is not a small request.

The Fourth Amendment provides a limit on Government in the following manner:
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.

Now is it true that because I am jealous of my freedom, I must be weak on National Security. I say no a thousand times.

I would contend that the nation is far more secure by enforcing the limitations placed upon the Government. There are suitable provisions available for the government to collect and analyze information based upon probable cause without having to carte blanc surrender the freedom of all citizens. The framers of the constitution were equally worried about the abusiveness of a large central government.

As we analyze the political parties what are we requiring of them?

Do we allow them to hold a position which would take our Freedom and grant unconstitutional power to the government?

What will we do to require those who want to be our leaders to commit to the cause of protecting our Constitution?

Will we require their promise to work to repeal such legislation as the National Security Act, the Patriot and Patriot 2 acts and all other attempts designed to impose the strong arm of the Government and a loss of our personal liberties?
Will we sell out under the threat that we have no choice or that we must accept the lesser of evils?

Will we propel new leaders into places of responsibility not because of their bloodline, not because of their bank account and not because of their party label but because of their principles and their avid desire to protect our Freedoms?

Where are these leaders?
Where are the citizens who are tired of losing what is theirs?

It will cost you to take a stand. It will cost you to support candidates who are not tied to the special interest and will of big business and the established parties.


Freedom is not Free, it is a most precious gift worthy of our due diligence and guard.

Your voice and your vote will give evidence to your convictions.

Moderate

Lindsey Graham and John McCain are described by the secular media as moderates.

A Moderate is a liberal who hasn't come out of the closet.

67% of South Carolina Republicans Rejected John McCain

I was surprised that John McCain did as well as he did in South Carolina. I was specifically interested in where he performed well and where he performed poorly. John McCain's participation in the Amnesty for illegal aliens, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform fiasco and the Gang of 14 prove that he is not a conservative at heart. McCain "became" a conservative especially in regards to the above issues as he entered South Carolina. He debated that the Amnesty bill was not Amnesty and when he was cornered on the issue time and again, he would divert to "I think we should lower the rhetoric and move on." Which in other words means I don't want to be held accountable so please change the subject.

My interest in McCain's performance lied in the important issues and my belief that these areas will not be addressed IF he becomes the Republican party nominee. I do not believe the experience of John McCain being a prisoner of war equates to his ability to be a good commander in chief. If he is as strong on National Security and our defense as he professes, why was he willing to leave our border open until the voice of the people spoke loud enough that in his words "we have heard from the American people and they no longer trust their government, they want the border secured first." Well John McCain is a part of the government and he is part of the reason that the American people do not trust the government to keep its word. Leaders who run as conservatives who embrace liberal democratic views are not to be trusted. How competent is a commander in chief if he has to reach the point of hearing the voice of the American people before calling for the border to be secured.

I am sorry John McCain was a prisoner of war but I do not believe he is the best potential commander in chief because of it. How about spending, Congress has allowed rampant spending for the past 8 years and while I am glad John McCain stopped the funding of an overly expensive airplane contract, where has he contributed with any degree of energy an effort to stop pork earmarks. He hasn't because he has been party to the spending spree. He dodges the issue of voting against the tax cuts because he is attempting to play a great national shell game where the politician hides his record and dodges the evidence of who he is and what kind of leader he will be if elected as the President.

I can go on at length about the issues where John McCain has proven his true "stripes"; and those stripes are liberal; but I want to divert my attention for a moment to his buddy Lindsey Graham. Lindsey has worked diligently to become just like John McCain and he has mirrored McCain's sad positions more oft than not. I know Lindsey is hoping that since John McCain squeaked by with the SC primary victory that he can hope to enjoy the same level of 'forgetfulness' on the part of the voters of SC.

Lindsey needs to understand that McCain won SC because of the split vote among so many candidates. Let's look at the numbers for a moment. McCain came out with 33% of the vote.
That means that 67% of the SC Republican voters reject John McCain and his positions.

67% of SC Republicans did NOT want John McCain as their representative or the party nominee. Lindsey can expect to share the same level at best when we run in the spring.

I am running for the United States Senate to replace Lindsey Graham and I am speaking to the 67% or more of SC Republicans who feel as I do about these important issues. Join me in this campaign and let's prove to the pundits that SC still holds a majority of conservative republicans who will prove their discontent when they cast their vote for their next Senator.

The numbers and the odds worked against us in the Presidential race but we can loudly express our views in the race for Senate. If and I repeat IF John McCain goes on to become the Republican nominee how much more important will be the need to unseat Lindsey Graham so we can be a counter balance to the liberal policies that McCain is sure to try. I will as Senator stand firm on the policies and positions that I hold, it is because we have been betrayed in our conservative values from Lindsey and others like McCain that I have entered into this race. There is no acceptable reason for elected leaders to abandon their principles. When they run as strong conservatives, like Lindsey did, and then they promote these liberal positions, again like Lindsey has done, the evidence that their principles were ones of convenience rather than principles of conviction is hard to ignore.

Watch for our new website and continue to send in your comments and questions. I promise I will answer all of them. Join our team and support this campaign in a tangible manner. No contribution is too small and every amount entrusted for this effort will be well served.