No Place For Liberty In The Progressives’ Timid New World

0 Shares

The Founders’ vision of the United States as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world grew largely from their desire to ensure that the Nation never resembled that from which they were forced to fight a bloody war to free themselves. The law of the land, in its original construct, was designed to protect personal freedom, privacy and the right to self-preservation against the malicious intent of both agents of the state and free-actors with equal vigor.

But, for busybodies and statists hell-bent on total control, the modern world is too different a place for Americans to value the historic advice — and legislation — of the Nation’s Founding Fathers. And every tragedy or event that has the potential to affront the hearts of Americans with the least bit of unease represents a new chance for the liberty-averse to make their case for less Constitutional consideration.

If you don’t believe the preceding statements coming from an average American peon who values his own naturally ordained and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, take it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Speaking in reference to the Boston Marathon bombing that occurred last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg — who has gone out of his way to make New York City as Constitutionally bereft as possible — had this to say: “The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Bloomberg said later in his remarks: “It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks. We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

Just outside of Bloomberg’s city in New York Harbor stands a world-famous neoclassical sculpture given to the people of the United States by France in 1886. Originally named La Liberté éclairant le monde, or Liberty Enlightening the World, the Statue of Liberty is representative of the Founders’ vision of an America known worldwide as a beacon of liberty. For more than a century, the colossal representation of the Roman goddess Libertas has watched over the city with her ever burning torch in one arm and tubula ansata, representative of the rule of law, in the other.

In the stairwell of Lady Liberty’s pedestal hangs a plaque bearing a slight variant of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin circa 1755, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

It is duly noted that Franklin and, especially, the ancient Roman Libertas are undoubtedly not contemporary enough to be afforded the consideration of a man as progressive as Bloomberg. But one is forced to wonder how either of the advocates of liberty — real or imagined — from the “olden days” would feel about Bloomberg-era policy initiatives like big soda bans, stop and frisk, and universal surveillance.

Would they simply throw up their arms and mutter, “Times have changed; and the world is too dangerous a place for liberty”?

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Warrior

    Well, we’re FREE to walk around. FREE to attend the church of our choosing. I think almost EVERYTHING else we do requires us to pay a TAX.
    Own your home or rent – Tax
    Heat your home -Tax
    Light your home- Tax
    Talk on the phone – Tax
    Purchase food -Tax
    Drive your car – Tax
    Purchase health care – Tax
    Die – Tax
    Now, if the “progressives” can just get that dang “carbon tax” passed, even walking around will cost you. In fact, there really is nothing that you think you OWN, that the taxman can’t take. Some nation of LAWS, eh?

    • http://www.facebook.com/mary.shirk Mary Shirk

      I can’t believe the people of NY sit back and take this. I thought they would rise up and say “ENOUGH already!”

      • Dave

        I think the people of NY, that get 70 cents back for every dollar they pay into fed coffers while conservative states like AK, KY, AL, SC, MS etc get well over a dollar back in pork, should demand that the “taker” states pay their own way for once. The idea that conservatives are somehow more self-suffiencent and responsible is the biggest joke running.

    • cawmun cents

      Google Mary Nichols……director of the California Air Resource Board,and you find that she is willing to tax you just to breathe her air.
      Not to mention the draconian limitations she forces businesses to undergo.
      People like her…not even elected to office are controlling our lives by their insane agendas daily,and yet we do not question her authority over us.
      You might think,”Well that is only a problem for Californians”
      Guess again.
      Her aim is to make the entire nation,if not the world to become under the direction of her team and board,and if she is not stopped,she may live to see it begin to happen.
      Do you want someone who you cannot remove from office directing your life to the degree of how they think they should?
      Stand up,or rather wake up and take notice of your future under the guise of Progressiveism.
      It is coming to a theatre near you.
      Cheers!
      -CC.

    • KG

      Ya know, freedom isn’t free.

  • Peter Barney

    Thanks to Obama a Tax Marxist!

  • dan

    I thought the people of Taxachutesettes would maybe not let them invade their homes

    looking for terrorists…

    but then I still haven’t figured out why people let them put their hands down their pants

    and touch their swimsuit area looking for terrorist just to fly the friendly skies .

  • Tom T

    Back in the days of our founders the had a little exercise to deal with people like Bloomberg. It was called “tar & feathering and then put them on a rail and run them to the city limits and told not to come back. Bloomie is showing all the signs of megalomania, Napoleon syndrome, and as they say in the south “full of himself and being ugly”. He needs serious therapy for OUR sake and some for his sake as well.

  • GALT

    Personal Liberty Digest continues commitment to feeding “mushrooms”……..

    It would appear that Mr. Rolley is a man of boundless ambition having spent sufficient time as an understudy, he has summonned the courage to venture forth into the world of mindless rhetoric for w.i.f.i. consumption………..welcome Sam, let’s play.

    1.) Use of the appropriate inciteful words…..in opening title.

    No Place For Liberty In The Progressives’ Timid New World

    One can just imagine the little fungi waking up, salivating……

    The Founders’ vision of the United States as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world grew largely from their desire to ensure that the Nation never resembled that from which they were forced to fight a bloody war to free themselves.

    2.) The allusion to things which “everyone knows”……..and which no one knows………

    a.) The mythical “Founder’s”? Who were they?

    b.) What “liberty” were they forced to fight for?

    ” The law of the land, in its original construct, was designed to protect personal freedom, privacy and the right to self-preservation against the malicious intent of both agents of the state and free-actors with equal vigor.”

    c.) What was its original construct?

    d.) The “right to self preservation”?

    e.) Malicious intent ?

    It should be noted that Sam almost stumbles upon the “self evident unalienable right” you do have…….an improvement over the founders in this sense………but these two opening sentences, whose meaning every mushroom understands………..has no basis in FACT, nor does history support any of it.

    If you don’t believe the preceding statements coming from an average American peon who values his own naturally ordained and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, take it straight from the horse’s mouth.

    The fungi are SCREAMING now……..feed me! FEED ME! In his continuing undisciplined use and abuse of words, Sam stumbles on another “truth” employing the word “peon” and then contradicting it, in what is now an indecipherable mass of insinuations which are factually and historically inaccurate as well as being “logically inconsistent and unsupportable”.

    “a slight variant of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin circa 1755, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.””

    The w.i.f.i. “mushroom” is notoriously forgiving while being fed, after all “everyone knows what Sam means” and by extension what Franklin meant…….but there is a small problem…….the year is 1755.

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

    Would they ( the mythical founders ) simply throw up their arms and mutter, “Times have changed; and the world is too dangerous a place for liberty”?

    For the “mushroom” that is a rhetorical question and Sam has now completely his journey into the world of mindless rhetoric…….having said “nothing”……….the incited “mushrooms” have the floor……

    Do the “mushrooms” believe that……?

    1.) The framers of the Constitution opposed a strong central government?

    2.)The framers hated taxes?

    3.)The framers were impartial statesmen, above interest driven politics?

    4.) The framers were guided by clear principles of limited government?

    5.) James Madison sired the Constitution?

    6.) The Federalist Papers tell us what the Constitution really means?

    7.) The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights?

    8.) By discovering what the framers intended or how the founding generation understood the text, we can determine how each provision of the Constitution must be applied?

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.”

    • cawmun cents

      You use the word “framers” as if it holds weight.

      In fact if you substituted the word “formers” for the word “framers”.you would have a more accurate picture of what you might be suggesting.

      You have to have a firm foundation before you can frame.

      Therefore the builders of this fine nation had the task of “forming” a more perfect union.and not framing a less perfect one as you suggest.

      The word “framers” comes from talking points devised by Marxists to cloud other peoples judgement about what was originally intended.

      But only the few who notate how word wizards seek to steal away their reasoning will see these things.

      As it stands now,you have the upper hand in that your Marxist driven educators have conditioned the vast majority of the populace to be slaves to their word wizardry.But it may not always be so.
      So choose your words carefully and use them well in less educated forums so that you can sound more intelligent.
      The rest of us know the folly of assuming that you are.
      Cheers!
      -CC.

      • Dave

        Marxist? Come on CC… why do you and many of your conservative friends continually use words you clearly do not understand?
        Can you specify exactly what GALT’s positions on things translates to being a Marxist? OR tell me how does the term “Framer” comes from Marxist talking points?
        Is it just anyone that dares disagree with your sensibilities?

      • GALT

        The contention…..if you were not a “w.i.f.i.”. would be between the

        words “framers” and “founders”……..

        If you were not a “w.i.f.i.” there are also two sets of questions…..the first set inquires whether you have any clue regarding meaning of anything employed by our new “mushroom” feeder.

        The second set isl directed at the “framers” of the “constitution” and specifically regarding the “constitution”.

        The only thing can be discerned from your post……is that
        you are a “w.i.f.i.”……….you explain nothing and you answer none of the questions………

        And the only relevant thing you said…..begs a question?

        If the result or intent was “a more perfect union” from what did it
        originate?

        and just for fun…..Was the result a “perfect union”?

        As you can see…….now you simply have MORE questions to answer.

        One would have thought you would have learned “something” by
        now?

  • Miss Melody Taylor

    Thanks Sam. We need to fire or impeach anyone whom threatensor our responsible constitutional freedoms. We need to stop anyone (maybe by force), whom attempts to or has already removed scriptures & markers from our government buildings! I recently learned that the bldg & property that hold our U.S. Currency (& I assume printing presses), are foreign owned! England, Rothchilds, or whoever?? I say, not fair, not right, and…”caveat emptor”; meaning, “we the people can seize the property to make it American owned”! Friends, do your home work…. & understand this term & our rights! Please wake up people. We the people should own our own treasury!!!

    • GALT

      Another w.i.f.i. sharing delusions…..

      “caveat emptor” is a warning to the “buyer”…..

      It has a “mirror”.

      “venditor emptor”

      Are you intelligent enough to discern meaning from context?