Security or Liberty, Never the Twain Shall Meet

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." — Benjamin Franklin, Reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania, November 11, 1755

Yesterday, we were struggling to digest the revelation that every Verizon user's cell phone activity was being monitored by the federal government. Within twenty-four hours, we learned that it was happening at AT&T and Sprint, too. And it was happening to credit card receipts. And social media communications, online video conferences, email, documents stored in the Internet cloud.

Sources within the intelligence community have leaked documents that introduced America to a vast surveillance state, which has been growing for years, nourished by powers granted in the Patriot Act - whose author, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who says all this was "never the intent" of his legislation. He described what he's seeing today as "excessive and un-American."

On the other hand, we have bipartisan assurances from Congress that all of this is necessary, and it has prevented terror attacks - although it makes the threats they didn't detect, like the Boston Marathon bombers, seem even more curious.

While most of these programs had their origins under the Bush Administration, their scope has expanded enormously under President Obama, who sold himself as deeply skeptical of the War on Terror strategies he ended up adopting and intensifying. He's also spent a good deal of time over the last year assuring Americans that he broke the back of global terrorism. But even as he was declaring victory, his Administration was harvesting data on just about every phone call and Internet communication. And he's given us good reason to doubt that he and his subordinates can be trusted with sensitive information about American citizens.

Now that the beans have been spilled, there will be a vigorous debate about whether all of this is necessary. The public is generally supportive of national security measures, but are they comfortable with a world in which everyone is monitored, instead of directing surveillance against threats that have been carefully identified and subjected to extensive review? Are we ready to abandon privacy by default?

As Benjamin Franklin stated in his letter:

“In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence [sic], as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring [sic] Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insidious [sic] Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But this much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.”

*Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755. — The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

*This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

While Franklin was referring to the willingness of some of citizens of Pennsylvania to accept the security offered by the King of England and his armies his quotation is as valid today as it was in 1755 —21 years prior to his contributions to Jefferson in authoring the Declaration of Independence.

Today it appears by the latest reports concerning the NSA and the FBI data mining our phone records and Internet browsing through its PRISIM program that we are trading or rights to privacy for some sense of security from unknown terrorist. The question is who are the alleged terrorists? Are the members of al Qaeda or some other radical Islamic group? Are they the Minutemen who monitor the border with video cameras? Are the groups in Montana or Idaho that do not want government interference of any sort in their lives? Are the Tea Party members who want a smaller and more fiscally responsible federal government? Or are they pro-life groups picketing Planned Parenthood clinics?

President Obama stated today in the Silicon Valley prior to his meetings with the Chinese that “we require a modest encroachment of our liberties to protect us against terrorists. I would remind the so-called law school scholar of the words of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

“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.”

A search and seizure by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present. Such a search or seizure is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment (applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment), and evidence obtained from the unlawful search may not be introduced in court.

In order to invoke protection under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, an individual must first have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to the location that was subject to the search or to the item that was seized.

A search warrant is a type of warrant that authorizes law enforcement officers to search a specified place for evidence. Without a search warrant, police officers may not search a place without its owner’s consent.

Only judges may issue search warrants. To obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is justified. Officers must support this showing with sworn statements (affidavits), and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. Judges must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether or not to issue the warrant. When issuing a search warrant, the judge may restrict the when and how the police may conduct the search.

The Fourth Amendment does not require officers seeking a warrant to show that the people or places to be searched committed any crime. Rather, they merely need to show probable cause that the sought-after evidence is there. For example, in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), the Supreme Court allowed police to search a student newspaper, where the newspaper was not implicated in any criminal activity but police suspected it had photographic evidence of the identities of demonstrators who assaulted police officers. However, some jurisdictions responded by passing laws restricting or forbidding these kinds of searches

Even the FISA Court must have a semblance of “probable cause” to issue a warrant. In this case a warrant for the phone records, e-mail records, Internet browsing and YouTube records of 313 million people does not sound like probable cause to me — but I’m no lawyer.

With news of the Obama administration seizing the phone records of every Verizon user in the country, it’s a good time to review the president’s previous comments and votes on the Patriot Act.

On December 15, 2005, for instance, Obama gave a speech on the Senate Floor regarding the Patriot Act:

“…And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document – through library books they’ve read and phone calls they’ve made – this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.”

You can read the full speech by clicking here

In March of 2006, Obama voted yes on the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 titled, “A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.”

On August 3, 2007, Obama voted no on the Protect America Act of 2007, titled, “A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.”

In February of 2008, the Senate voted on the H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Obama cast a no-vote.

On July 10, 2008, Bush signed H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Obama said:

“The most important lessons learned after 9-11 was that America’s Intelligence professionals lacked some of the tools they needed to monitor the communications of terrorists abroad. It’s essential that our Intelligence community knows who our enemies are talking to, what they’re saying, and what they’re planning. This law will insure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from lawsuits from past or future cooperation with the government.”

On March 31, 2008, while campaigning for his first term, Obama spoke about the Patriot Act in Lancaster, PA:

“Most of the problems that we have had in civil liberties were not done through the Patriot Act, they were done through executive order by George W. Bush. That’s what happened with Guantanamo, that’s what happened with the warrantless wire-taps, that’s what’s happened with the suspension of habeas corpus, that’s what’s happened in terms of the rounding up of Americans of Muslim extraction- those weren’t done through the Patriot Act. Those were all done separately.

There were some provisions in the Patriot Act that actually did address changes that needed to take place. Prior to the Patriot Act, you could not wiretap a phone that wasn’t land-based. Now think about it, nobody uses a land-based phone anymore. Certainly people who might be engaging in terrorism aren’t going to be using an old dial-up phone.”

But now Obama has changed his tune.

Today according to the New York Times President Obama offered a robust defense of the government surveillance programs revealed this week, and sought to reassure the public that his administration has not become a Big Brother with eyes and ears throughout the world of online communications.

Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Mr. Obama said, delivering a 14-minute answer to two questions about the surveillance programs at an event that was initially supposed to be devoted to the health care law. “That’s not what this program is about.”

The president’s remarks, during a four-day trip to the West Coast, were his first since the revelations this week of programs to collect information about phone calls and Internet traffic. Obama said the programs help prevent terrorist attacks and they are kept in check by rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.

He acknowledged that the public may be uncomfortable with the broad reach of the formerly secret programs, but he said he believed the government had struck the right balance between the need to fight terrorism and the need to protect privacy.

“You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said, repeatedly stressing that the lawmakers from both parties and federal judges were aware of the efforts. “You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Obama remained silent on Thursday as national security leaks revealed the secret programs for collecting the information, but today he appeared eager to explain them at length. He dismissed what he called “some of the hype” from news reports and emphasized the limits on the programs.

“If the intelligence community actually wants to listen to a telephone call, they have to go back to a federal judge,” Obama said. He said the collection of information from Internet companies like Google and Apple does not apply to American citizens or people living in the United States.

He repeatedly stressed that the surveillance programs were subject to Congressional oversight. In fact, he suggested that the programs — which he conceded were classified as top secret — were not truly secret because many members of Congress were aware of them.

“What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress,” the president said. “Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout.”

Mr. Obama suggested that Congressional debate behind closed doors should offer the public some confidence that the surveillance is not being abused. He said that those members of Congress — and the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court — were watching the process.

“If in fact there were abuses taking place, then presumably, those members of Congress could raise those issues.” They are empowered to do so.” Obama said.

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here,” he said.

The president also said he welcomed a more public debate over the future of such surveillance programs and what should be the appropriate balance between civil liberties and the need to maintain national security. But he said there “are some trade-offs involved” in that debate.

“My assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks,” Mr. Obama said.

Asked about government leaks that revealed the existence of the programs, the president defended the system of classifications that keeps information secret. And he suggested that such leaks make it harder for the government to protect Americans.

“If, in fact, this information ends up just being dumped out willy-nilly without regard to risks to the program, risks to the people involved, in some cases on other leaks, risks to personnel in very dangerous situations, then it’s very hard for us to be as effective in protecting the American people,” Obama said.

But the disclosure of the programs, which involve some of the nation’s biggest technology and communications firms — including Google, Apple and Verizon — seemed likely to prompt a vigorous discussion among policy makers and Internet consumers about the expectations for privacy and security in an increasingly connected and online world.

Earlier today, lawmakers in Washington, many of whom have been privately briefed on the secret surveillance efforts for years, sought to balance their public expressions of concern about the impact on privacy with the need to combat national security threats. Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who often votes with Democrats, said this morning that there needed to be a discussion about that balance.

“People ought to have at least a general idea of what’s going on,” Mr. King said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “It’s unfortunate that it has to come out in the form of leaks. The question is where’s the appropriate balance?”

He added: “It makes me nervous that all those phone records are in the possession of the National Security Agency.”

Under the classified program revealed Thursday, the federal government has been secretly collecting information on foreigners overseas for nearly six years from the nation’s largest Internet companies in search of national security threats. The revelation came just hours after government officials acknowledged a separate seven-year effort to sweep up records of telephone calls inside the United States.

Dennis C. Blair, who served as Mr. Obama’s first director of national intelligence, said Friday that there was little debate at the beginning of the Obama administration about whether to continue the National Security Agency’s telephone and Internet surveillance programs that began under President Bush.

“In 2006 and 2007, everything was put under a legal basis. That looked pretty good to us, so we continued it,” Mr. Blair said in an interview with The New York Times. He said that the agency’s relationships with Internet companies have been especially valuable, given the volume of global communications that are now done strictly in cyberspace.

The disclosure of the extent of United States surveillance caused outrage on Friday among civil liberties and privacy groups in Europe, where data protection has become a hot-button issue. The possibility that the online communications of European citizens could have been caught up in the NSA’s data sweep, because of their use of American Internet services, caused particular anxiety.

Official reaction from European capitals was more subdued — perhaps partly, analysts said, because many governments would like similar powers to monitor Internet communications.

In Turkey, where antigovernment protests have been raging for more than a week, partly because of complaints about a lack of civil liberties and heavy-handed government, the revelations also touched a nerve.

“If the U.S. complains about foreign governments spying and then it turns out it is doing the same thing — well, what are you complaining about?” said Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor at Istanbul Bilgi University.

An array of civil liberties advocates and libertarian conservatives said the disclosures provided the most detailed confirmation yet of what has been long suspected about what the critics call an alarming and ever-widening surveillance state.

The Internet surveillance program collects data from online providers including e-mail, chat services, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, video conferencing and logins, according to classified documents obtained and posted by The Washington Post and then The Guardian on Thursday afternoon.

In confirming its existence, officials said that the program, called Prism, is authorized under a foreign intelligence law that was recently renewed by Congress, and maintained that it minimizes the collection and retention of information “incidentally acquired” about Americans and permanent residents. Several of the Internet companies said they did not allow the government open-ended access to their servers but complied with specific lawful requests for information.

“It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States,” Mr. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement, describing the law underlying the program. “Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.”

The dual revelations, in rapid succession, also suggested that someone with access to high-level intelligence secrets had decided to unveil them in the midst of furor over leak investigations. Both were reported by The Guardian, while The Post, relying upon the same presentation, almost simultaneously reported the Internet company tapping. The Post said a disenchanted intelligence official provided it with the documents to expose government overreach.

The Guardian and The Post posted several slides from the 41-page presentation about the Internet program, listing the companies involved — which included Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL, Skype and YouTube — and the dates they joined the program, as well as listing the types of information collected under the program.

In my view all of this gobbledygook and double speak from the Obama Administration and Congress is purely Orwellian. This administration’s policies and actions regarding the IRS, Justice Department, and now the NSA’s data mining makes Orwell’s Big Brother look like little sister.

We are being told that the NSA is only collecting metadata and no phone records are being scrutinized in detail. Hogwash, metadata is data about the data. It is the key that use used to open the door to records you want to look at. As example the metadata will show the available records for John Doe are his e-mails, phone records, Internet browsing actives, books he has browed on Amazon, and if the ordered a magic pancake pan. All the investigator need do is click on one of those categories and bingo he or she is into the details. My Nikon D700 keeps metadata on all of my digital photos including a host of photographic information.

Obama is telling us they (NSA and FBI) are not listening to your phone calls. With Obama’s record of veracity this may or may not be true. In other words they are telling us they are collecting the data, just not querying it. How would you feel if the government said they would put a video camera in your house and film you every day and then store those recordings in a giant facility in Utah? They would tell you not to worry as no one would look at the video. If you believe that I have a bridge I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn for a very low price with installment payments.

They tell us that to look at those recordings they need a warrant from a FISA Court (or some other judge). We know how that works. It took Eric Holder shopping three judges to get the warrant to look into Fox News’s James Rosen’s e-mails. Also remember that Rosen or Fox News knew nothing about it for over a year. All the Justice Department has to do is word the warrant in such a way (as Holder did) to include words like “criminal conspiracy”, “threat to national security”, or “prosecution for certain criminal acts.” Now in the Rosen case Holder states the DOJ had no intention of prosecuting Rosen. In essence they lied to the judge to get the warrant. So we are supposed to trust he government.

Suppose you forward those crazy unproven e-mails to you friends or you browse Google or Bing for information about radical Islam. What if you browse right-wing or libertarian web sites of look on Amazon for certain types of books like Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn, or Brad Thor thrillers? What if you browse prono sites or foreign newspapers online? How about blogging or posting on Facebook even moderate criticisms of Obama and his minions? What if you browse the Internet for information on firearms and ammunition? All of these things will be a part of the metadata.

Richard Reid was not apprehended due to good intelligence. He was caught trying to light his shoe on fire on an airliner.

The underwear bomber was caught trying to light his crotch on fire as the airliner he was one approached the Detroit airport. His father had warned U.S. officials of his son’s radical Islamic beliefs and his connection with known terrorist.

The Boston Marathon bomber was not caught because of good intelligence even though the FBI had records on him. One was caught due to a car hijacking and the other because a homeowner went out to smoke a cigarette and spotted blood on his boat.

Fort Hood did not happen due to the lack of intelligence. The Army knew Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a risk due to his expressed radical Islamic views and association with Anwar al-Awlaki, a known terrorist. He had been reading Inspire Magazine, the publication of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).Hasan had been under investigation by the Army CID. The problem was not the lack of definitive intelligence — it was the lack of political will by the Army.

Ever since 9/11 we have been losing our Constitutional liberties and rights drip by drip and the media has been negligent if not downright reluctant to expose these infringements. In some cases such as gun control and illegal immigration they have been willing accomplices in the process.

We are slowly allowing the Republic to be turned into an administrative state run by statists and masterminds from Washington, D.C. We are turning the Republic into Ameritopia. As James Madison wrote in his 1792 essay on property:

“He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

It seems that President Obama just can’t catch a break. He has most certainly had a difficult start to his second term. The debt ceiling and sequestration battle with House Republicans, attempts to broker a peace deal in Syria and the destruction of his gun control legislation have indeed been major setbacks.

But while these issues have been blows to the administration, they were at least somewhat beyond his control. The latest rash of scandals is very much homegrown in the Obama White House and they could, therefore, have been prevented.

We have all watched as one scandal after another has come to light. The administration has been overreaching in all areas: with the IRS, with journalists at the AP and James Rosen at Fox News and now it appears that their most egregious overreaching has been with the American citizenry.

We heard from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that we should all just calm down about the NSA’s request for Verizon to hand over all records of telephone calls within its system – both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries. Apparently the fact that this isn’t a new practice means that it shouldn’t bother us.

Reid’s feelings on the matter are certainly shared by other members of Congress like Senator Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham. But there are other influential members of Congress who see things the way the American public does. Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner expressed his concern about the data collection.

He wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, “as the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overboard interpretation of the Act.” In a press release he continued, “seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

Leaked documents reveal that the NSA did not stop with the Verizon phone records.

They have been directly tapping the servers of nine leading US Internet companies, extracting video and audio chats, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets.

These Bush-era practices, practices that have expanded during Obama’s tenure. They have been vehemently defended and their exposure criticized for the impact on our national security. For instance, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, condemned the leaks of the classified documents.

Indeed, this disclosure does have the potential to reveal too much to our enemies about our practices, but it more importantly calls into question the practices of our own administration. And it has now become clear that those practices are not in step with promises the President made to Americans.

Just a few months ago, President Obama declared “this is the most transparent administration in history” during a Google Plus “Fireside” hangout. To be sure, transparency was one of the President’s biggest campaign promises and a featured element of his first four years in office.

But these recent scandals call into question the authenticity of Obama’s statement.

From Benghazi to the IRS to the latest news on the NSA it is quite clear that Obama’s administration is failing to keep their word on this issue.

The result has been that Obama’s agenda is essentially dead in the water. His days, and his administration’s days, are now spent playing defense — in press conferences, in hearings and elsewhere.

What’s more, the appointments of Ambassador Susan Rice as his new national security advisor and Samantha Power to replace Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador indicate that the administration is doubling down, not reaching out.

At a time when the president should be doing all he can to reach across the aisle and to quell American’s fears and come clean he is not the man he said he was, he is just plodding along business as usual.

We don’t have time for business as usual anymore. There is far too much going on at home and abroad for the president to continue to ignore the crises his administration is facing.

If Obama cannot come clean and begin to take action to correct this course Congress must or Franklin’s caution will come true. As Lord Acton stated: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Progressivism is Dangerous for Your Life, Liberty and Property

“In short, the way to wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words; industry and frugality—that is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both. Without industry and frugality nothing will do, and with them everything. He that gets all he can honestly, and saves all he gets (necessary expenses excepted), will certainly become rich, if that Being who governs the world, to whom all should look for a blessing on their honest endeavors, does not, in his wise providence, otherwise determine.” — Benjamin Franklin, Advice to a Young Tradesman, 1748

Benjamin Franklin was raised in a typical Puritan home in Boston, but migrated to Philadelphia as a teenager. In the freer atmosphere of the Quaker city he prospered; everything he touched became successful, including a printing business, the Pennsylvania Gazette, and the little almanac he named Poor Richard’s. He retired at forty-two, became famous for his scientific experiments and inventions, received an honorary doctorate from Oxford, and later somewhat reluctantly entered politics.

Franklin grew with Philadelphia. He was the great American success story and did more than any one person to show the world that America was the “Land of Opportunity.” He wrote this little occasional essay soon after his retirement from active management of his business affairs. It would be reprinted hundreds of times. Although much of its advice seems to later generations to be simple common sense, his ideas about time, money, and credit were new and wondrous to a world just awakening to entrepreneurial ways of thinking. The “Way to Wealth” reflects the celebration of material accumulation and concern for individual accomplishment that became culturally acceptable in the eighteenth century.

When it came to issues of the civil society, government, work, taxes, and finances Franklin was by today’s political labeling a Libertarian. But Franklin also expressed a belief in a Creator from which all rights emanated, He called these rights “unalienable” and suggested to Jefferson that he use this word in the Declaration of Independence.

James Madison, like Franklin, held these same beliefs and so states in his 1792 essay on Property where he states:

“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights

of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.”

With the historical record of the last century and a half of political and social experimentation behind us, the fundamental question for Western civilization has come down to this: How free do people want to be? Partially free or completely free? Furthermore, is it even possible to be considered truly free if one is only partially free? Democratically based societies around the globe need to decide which they value more — liberal/Progressive equality or liberty. There is no happy medium that will sustain both. One need only observe the contention, the hyper-partisanship, and the social and economic decline of societies that have attempted to balance the two concepts to recognize that it is a fool's errand.

The concept of freedom used here means that each individual owns his or her own life (body and mind, including that which he produces with his body and mind) while existing in a condition in which voluntary courses of action can be chosen without physical compulsion, coercion, or interference from others.

It is obvious that freedom is meaningless in a society without rights to protect it. A right has, therefore, been defined as a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person's freedom in a social context. Past Supreme Court justice George Sutherland stated it eloquently when he said:

"The right to life, liberty and property are bound together to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but to deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him liberty but to take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave."

Both freedom and rights are futile without the principle of equality of rights. Though people possess a vast array of individual differences, all members of a free society should be treated equally in two respects: in the equality of their individual rights, and in their equality of treatment before the law. Freedom cannot exist for those whose rights are subordinated to the rights or objectives of others. Observing the equality of rights also means that any alleged "right" of one person, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. For example, no person can have the "right" to impose an un-chosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or involuntary servitude on another person. Armed with this understanding, we can begin to clear the fog of Progressivism and understand how its agenda of collectivism and redistribution is corrosive to freedom.

Another way to state this axiom was put forth by 150 years ago by Frederick Bastiat in his easy on the Law where he termed those un-chosen obligations as “plunder.” He stated:

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

…

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.”

In order to be acceptable in a culture that valued individual liberty and self-reliance, Progressives realized that collectivism had to be cloaked in "the common good of society," and egalitarian redistribution disguised as "fairness" necessary to achieve "social justice." Unconcealed, these objectives are offensive to a free society in which individuals follow their own values and preferences and are not bound to follow someone else's. This principle is founded on the belief that adult individuals of sound mind are the ultimate judges of their own well-being and that their own views should be paramount in governing their actions.

The proponents of liberal/Progressive equality, on the other hand, want to govern the actions of others in order to organize society and its resources to achieve their specific objectives, which are often loosely defined as the "common good." The writings of many liberal/Progressive academics and thinkers have pointed out that, in a free society, the common good can mean only the sum of the various goods of all of the individuals involved. When the common good is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some takes precedence over the good of others. A free society does not require the sacrifice of anyone's interests, be it to another powerful individual or even to a majority. It leaves no possibility for any person to serve his or her interests by subordinating the interests of others.

Herein is the equality paradox, the central contradiction of liberal/Progressive ideology. Though the Progressive version of equality is presented to society as "fairness," it paradoxically requires unequal treatment by the force of government to subordinate the rights of some to the dictates of others in order to facilitate the latter's aims. The objective rule of law is bent to accommodate preferential treatment of chosen groups who, in turn, reward their government benefactors with electoral support.

In this sense Bastiat might have added a fourth to his list of plunders; The many plunder the few.

Once established, a "system" such as this eventually becomes the inverse of the one prescribed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A democratically based, constitutionally limited republic is replaced with statism, where authoritarian government masterminds know few limitations and obedient citizens are cultivated through increasingly restricted freedom of action and a diminution in the protection of individual rights. The consequence, which is lost on many good-intentioned people who support Progressive policies, is that it matters not if individual rights and freedom of choice are subordinated to the arbitrary whims of a monarch, a dictator, or to a government under the banner of societal good — they are subordinated nonetheless.

Committed Progressives will often concede that the rights of some may be subordinated and freedoms abridged, but they defend this as necessary in the transformation into a fairer society. Once the transformation is complete, they say, everyone will enjoy equality and live in a society where material needs will be met through cooperative effort guided by benevolent government action. Their assertions demand an answer to these questions: Of all the societies that have attempted similar transformations, are there any examples where this has gone to successful completion? Furthermore, does the modern Progressive welfare state represent such a completion?

Interestingly, social scientist and author Charles Murray has referred to the last century of experimentation with collectivism and egalitarianism as modern civilization's era of adolescence -- an era when parental advice, based on the practical lessons learned through life experiences, is discounted as irrelevant to the "modern times" in which the adolescent and his or her cohorts live. Intellectual immaturity, hubris, naivety, and the youthful rebellious desire to be uninhibited by conventional standards eventually give way to an appreciation of the value of one's parents' timeless wisdom.

Will America mature in a parallel fashion through this Progressive-influenced phase of societal development and regain an appreciation for the timeless wisdom of her founding principles? Or will America venture farther away from freedom and down the path toward liberal/Progressive equality?

Committed Progressives will often concede that the rights of some may be subordinated and freedoms abridged, but they defend this as necessary in the transformation into a fairer society. Once the transformation is complete, they say, everyone will enjoy equality and live in a utopian society where material needs will be met through cooperative effort guided by benevolent government action. Their assertions demand an answer to these questions: Of all the societies that have attempted similar transformations, are there any examples where this has gone to successful completion? Furthermore, does the modern Progressive welfare state represent such a completion?

Interestingly, social scientist and author Charles Murray in his book “Coming Apart” has referred to the last century of experimentation with collectivism and egalitarianism as modern civilization's era of adolescence — an era when parental advice, based on the practical lessons learned through life experiences, is discounted as irrelevant to the "modern times" in which the adolescent and his or her cohorts live. Intellectual immaturity, hubris, naivety, and the youthful rebellious desire to be uninhibited by conventional standards eventually give way to an appreciation of the value of one's parents' timeless wisdom.

Will America mature in a parallel fashion through this Progressive-influenced phase of societal development and regain an appreciation for the timeless wisdom of her founding principles? Or will America venture farther away from freedom and down the path toward liberal/Progressive equality?

Aristocrats vs. The Common Man

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.” — Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations — 1774

American colonial history represents a striking event in world history-the transatlantic migration of millions of people, from the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492, to the first permanent British settlement in America in 1607, to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

English Puritans arriving in Massachusetts comprised the first of four great migrations to America. After the English Civil War a generation later, Royalist Cavaliers, Anglican Royalists, and sympathizers of the Crown fled Puritan-dominated England and settled in the Virginia area. The third transatlantic migration occurred between 1675 and 1725, when Quakers from the northern midlands of England arrived in the Delaware River Valley. The fourth of the great migrations was comprised of Scots-Irish who settled in the broad expanse of land from western Pennsylvania to the Shenandoah Valley.

The Puritans are especially noteworthy among these early immigrants to America. The Mayflower Compact, John Winthrop's sermon, "A Modell of Christian Charity," and Winthrop's speech to the Massachusetts General Court of July 3, 1645 — three Puritan documents-highlight their understanding of the purpose of civil society and the function of government as being wedded to the advancement and glory of God and the "better ordering and preservation" of each individual. These documents establish the early importance placed on the rule of law, the role of a covenant or compact to establish a "civil body politic," and the essentialness of ongoing deliberation for self-government.

These documents also layout noteworthy differences between the Puritans and the Founders. They declare the primary importance of community at the expense of individual rights, the foundation of any claim to individual liberties to be responsibilities, and the perpetual subjugation of "true liberty" to authority exercised rightly. But an important debate arose from this understanding of society and government, concerning the relationship between the authority of magistrates and the liberty of the people, which debate has remained an essential aspect of American self-government.

As these four migrations began to establish themselves as political powers within Colonial America two began gaining more influence — the descendants of the Puritans in Massachusetts and the descendants of the Royalist Cavaliers in Virginia. Each had a separate relationship with the mother country and the king. The Puritans had become a more mercantile society clustering to cities like Boston and Philadelphia while the Royalist gravitated to farming with cotton and tobacco being mainstay crops and a plantation system that required slavery. Our Founders would come from both camps.

One of the leading lights to emanate from the Puritan heritage was Benjamin Franklin. The son of a candle maker who came to the colonies in the late 1600s, young Benjamin Franklin had little formal schooling, and despised the idea of following in his father's trade. He was apprenticed to his brother's newspaper, the New England Courant, during which time he embarked on a rigorous self-education, reading widely in history, philosophy and such popular writing as that of Addison and Steele. By the age of 16 he was writing essays for the Courant under the pseudonym "Silence Dogood." After leaving his hometown of Boston for Philadelphia, Franklin continued his self-education while working in a printer's shop, and, after taking a two year journey to England, he settled down to run his own paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette. While Franklin was establishing himself as a printer and writer, he also found time for public projects, such as the founding of the "Junto," a group of mostly young tradesmen who were, like Franklin, establishing themselves in business and the community. Through the work of the Junto and the questions it dealt with, Franklin lead important projects in the community such as the creation of the first library, and the formation of the first fire company in Philadelphia. The Junto also took up questions of scientific inquiry into the natural world. Franklin's experiments and discoveries in electricity are well known, but, among many other things, he also advised Robert Fulton on the creation of the steam engine, and hypothesized that the common cold was not caused by cold temperatures, but, rather what he called "contagion."

The life and civic activities of Benjamin Franklin were in a real sense a kind of experiment: an experiment in human and political equality. Britain and the rest of Europe were aristocratic states and societies, and it was assumed that men and women of birth were superior to those of humbler origin. American society was without the aristocratic social structure with its explicit and implicit prejudices. Thus Franklin, the son of a candle maker, could become the most distinguished man in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War based solely upon his genius and hard work. The growth of early America's civil society was proof of the principle of equality held by Franklin and others. Colonists began to understand that in building up their local institutions, they must do things for themselves, all the while meeting with opposition in colonial assemblies, and often being overruled by an incompetent and arbitrary royal governor. Indeed, it was the repeated quarrels between the people of the Colony of Pennsylvania and the Royal Proprietor, Thomas Penn, son of the great William Penn, which took Franklin to London as the colony's agent. While there he became the de facto agent for all the colonies and tried again and again to show the Board of Trade and Parliament how ill-advised their policies were, particularly the Stamp Act. But the philosophical currents of the day - those of the Enlightenment — were on the side of Franklin and the colonists, who soon would be known as revolutionaries.

This period called the Enlightenment, of which Franklin was the great embodiment in America, served as the important foundation for the American Revolution. The Enlightenment was a period of education for the American colonies, and, like young Franklin's education, it was largely self-imposed and therefore all the more valued by those undertook it. There is much scholarly argument surrounding the Enlightenment, a disputed term not only today, but in its own time. Was it a consistent body of thought? Was it holy irreligious or antireligious? Was the Enlightenment a uniform movement of thought or were there separate "Enlightenments" plural? It is important to remember that the Enlightenment is also called the neoclassical period, meaning that key figures of the period, particularly Americans during the Revolution, did not consider themselves to be inventing something new. Rather, they were rediscovering things that had always been true, though mankind had not always been able or eager to know them. The foundation of the American Enlightenment was science, a term which in the 18th Century still meant "knowledge" or inquiry generally. On the foundation of scientific inquiry, the American Enlightenment had four "pillars": religious liberty, political liberty, economic liberty and moral responsibility. This moral, political, and economic science that constituted the American Enlightenment aimed at supporting one chief end, what the founders understood as human happiness. And the nation they were forming would an example of a free, responsible self-governing people living and working in civil society under the rule of law in order to achieve their individual and collective happiness.

Franklin had a problem with European aristocrats controlling the dialog of our civil society. These aristocrats and elites were not from the people, they were from an inbred society of men who gained their elevated positions not through merit or accomplishments, but through accident of birth. Yet they were the ones who were suggesting laws and regulations to the King of England for the governance of his colonies. Franklin wanted a group, or as he called it a club, of local tradesmen — men with a stake in the community and civil society, who would explore and discuss issue of the day. He called this club the Junto.

The Junto was a club for mutual improvement established in 1727 by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. Also known as the Leather Apron Club, its purpose was to debate questions of morals, politics, and natural philosophy, and to exchange knowledge of business affairs. Franklin organized a group of friends to provide a structured form of mutual improvement. The group, initially composed of twelve members, called itself the Junto. The members of the Junto were drawn from diverse occupations and backgrounds, but they all shared a spirit of inquiry and a desire to improve themselves, their community, and to help others. Among the original members were printers, surveyors, a cabinetmaker, a clerk, and a bartender. Although most of the members were older than Franklin, he was clearly their leader.

Franklin describes the formation and purpose of the Junto in his autobiography:

“I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had form'd most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss'd by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased.

Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.”

Franklin wrote his autobiography largely to teach his son William (1731–1813) and other young men how to become successful. What better example of success than his own life?

Franklin was devoted to knowledge and through this devotion established the firs lending library in colonies. Here is an excerpt from his autobiography stating how he wanted to make books more available to his fellow citizens:

“At the time I established myself in Pennsylvania there was not a good bookseller’s shop in any of the colonies to the southward of Boston. In New York and Philadelphia the printers were indeed stationers; they sold only paper, etc., almanacs, ballads, and a few common school-books. Those who loved reading were obliged to send for their books from England; the members of the Junto had each a few. We had left the ale-house, where we first met, and hired a room to hold our club in. I proposed that we should all of us bring our books to that room, where they would not only be ready to consult in our conferences, but become a common benefit, each of us being at liberty to borrow such as he wished to read at home. This was accordingly done, and for some time contented us.

Finding the advantage of this little collection, I proposed to render the benefit from books more common by commencing a public subscription library. I drew a sketch of the plan and rules that would be necessary, and got a skillful conveyancer, Mr. Charles Brockden, to put the whole in form of articles of agreement, to be subscribed, by which each subscriber engaged to pay a certain sum down for the first purchase of books, and an annual contribution for increasing them. So few were the readers at that time in Philadelphia, and the majority of us so poor, that I was not able, with great industry, to find more than fifty persons, mostly young tradesmen, willing to pay down for this purpose forty shillings each, and ten shillings per annum. On this little fund we began. The books were imported; the library was opened one day in the week for lending to the subscribers, on their promissory notes to pay double the value if not duly returned. The institution soon manifested its utility; was imitated by other towns, and in other provinces. The libraries were augmented by donations; reading became fashionable; and our people, having no public amusements to divert their attention from study, became better acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed by strangers to be better instructed and more intelligent than people of the same rank generally are in other countries.”

Franklin was a self-educated man. He had no formal education beyond a few basic years when living at home prior to his being apprenticed in indentured servitude to his older brother. When talking about his own education Franklin had this to say:

“This library afforded me the means of improvement by constant study, for which I set apart an hour or two each day, and thus repaired in some degree the loss of the learned education my father once intended for me. Reading was the only amusement I allowed myself. I spent no time in taverns, games, or frolics of any kind; and my industry in my business continued as indefatigable as it was necessary. I was indebted for my printing-house; I had a young family coming on to be educated, and I had to contend with for business two printers, who were established in the place before me. My circumstances, however, grew daily easier. My original habits of frugality continuing, and my father having, among his instructions to me when a boy, frequently repeated a proverb of Solomon, “Do you see a man diligent in his calling? He shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.”1 I from thence considered industry as a means of obtaining wealth and distinction, which encouraged me, though I did not think that I should ever literally stand before kings, which, however, has since happened; for I have stood before five, and even had the honor of sitting down with one, the King of Denmark, to dinner.”

Franklin was not an atheist nor was he agnostic. He believed in a Deity who made the world and governed it. When it came to religion Franklin had this to say:

“I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and though some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteemed the essentials of every religion; and, being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all, though with different degrees of respect, as I found them more or less mixed with other articles, which, without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, served principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another. This respect to all, with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induced me to avoid all discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have of his own religion; and as our province increased in people, and new places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary contribution, my mite for such purpose, whatever might be the sect, was never refused.”

In speaking about morality Franklin stated:

“In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I met in my reading, I found the catalogue more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name. Temperance, for example, was by some confined to eating and drinking, while by others it was extended to mean the moderating every other pleasure, appetite, inclination, or passion, bodily or mental, even to our avarice and ambition. I proposed to myself, for the sake of clearness, to use rather more names, with fewer ideas annexed to each, than a few names with more ideas; and I included under thirteen names of virtues all that at that time occurred to me as necessary or desirable, and annexed to each a short precept, which fully expressed the extent I gave to its meaning.

1. These names of virtues, with their precepts were:
2. Temperance—Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
3. Silence—Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
4. Order—Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
5. Resolution—Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
6. Frugality—Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e., waste nothing.
7. Industry—Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
8. Sincerity—Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
9. Justice—Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
10. Moderation—Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
11. Cleanliness—Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
12. Tranquility—Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
13. Chastity—Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
14. Humility—Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judged it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time, and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone through the thirteen; and, as the previous acquisition of some might facilitate the acquisition of certain others, I arranged them with that view, as they stand above.”

Franklin had a firm belief in self-governance and that the main purpose of any government was to protect the rights of the civil society, through criminal and civil law, from those who would abridge those rights. He believed, like John Locke, that a man’s happiness was attained through his property — property he earned from his physical or mental efforts and was not due to any king or prince without his consent.

In 1776 when the Continental Congress was debating a break with the King of England they appointed a committee of five including Franklin along with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman to author a document that could be presented to the King. Adams was selected to chair the committee and he charged Jefferson with the task of witting the first draft while he and Franklin would edit Jefferson’s work. That document became our Declaration of Independence and stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It should be noted that the word “unalienable” was suggested by Franklin to replace Jefferson’s phase “God given.”

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language", containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history." The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

Franklin was also known for his many scientific discoveries and inventions. He was the first to use the terms negative and positive when referring to electricity and his famous experiment with the kite, string and key to observe the effects of lightening brought him international fame. He was compared to Isaac Newton. He gave advice to Robert Fulton for his invention of the steam engine. When his eyesight began to fail he invented the bifocal lens and invented a stove named after him — a stove he gave the patent rights away so other could make fortunes from its manufacture. He invented a musical instrument, the Glass Armonica, for which Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, George Frideric Handel, Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Strauss, and more than 100 other composers composed works for.

He published pamphlets on public and personal safety including one on how to prevent household fires. He established the first volunteer fire department in the colonies, something thousands of towns and small cites have across the United States today.

When the Revolutionary War began Franklin was assigned to Paris by the Continental Congress to raise money, obtain arms and ask for French naval support — something he did with great success.

He was present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention and added his wisdom to the conclave. It was Franklin who uttered the famous quip when asked by a woman outside of the convention hall what kind of government we will have Franklin replied “Madam, a Republic if we can keep it.”

Franklin was truly a Renaissance man in America’s Age of Enlightenment. With all of his many accomplishments and inventions he should best be known for his contributions to our civil society and our system of self- government — something we have been losing for the past 100 years to the elites, bureaucratic aristocrats and masterminds. So the next time a $100 dollar bill crosses your hand take a few seconds to think of the sage of Philadelphia. If I were asked to describe Franklin in today’s political terms I would call him a Libertarian.