Freedom Ride

as recognized in the Constitution?

Is there a new group of representatives that has missed the point of freedom?

It’s not that they’ve missed the point, it’s that they reject the premise of individual freedom under Natural Law.

Washington DC is currently controlled by Progressives, not Classical Liberals. Classical Liberals are ardent defenders of individual freedom in all cases. The only party that remotely adheres to that philosophy is the Libertarian Party.

Progressivism is predicated on the flawed notion that the human species can be perfected. They rely heavily on the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx in asserting that man is inherently at war with others on economic and social matters and requires the politician to control them. Life is a natural right. Liberty is only guaranteed to the extent that the state permits and private property does not exist. Think about that notion for a minute. How can you carry out a strategy that forces a single form of perfection of individuals who see themselves as autonomous, rational, independent people?

The US is built on the premise that humanity, by virtue of its existence, is endowed with 3 Natural Rights. Those are life, liberty, and private property. Life is self explanatory. Liberty is the freedom to apply your life to the world around you or in the service of others. For that application an individual is compensated with private property that is equivalent in their determination to the portion of their life an liberty that they gave in exchange. According to the principles of our founding, government was created by free people to protect those 3 rights. It cannot take a single step beyond protection without infringing on and violating those rights in favor of one over another. While not mandatory, this line of thinking is consistent with Judeo-Christian values and ideas about God, heaven, and the fallibility and free will of man. It embraces man’s free will and permits its absolute exercise so long as it does not infringe on others. Man’s free exercise of his free will in concert with every other individual’s free exercise of their free will leads to order and prosperity. It denies unlimited control to politicians as an acknowledgment that they are merely human.

Progressivism is premised on the idea that an enlightened few can lead the population to perfection on Earth. While not essential, a rejection of religion generally accompanies such political beliefs. The essential underlying premise is that government, or rather the enlightened governing class, is the source of prosperity for a nation. Man’s free exercise of his free will in concert with every other individual’s free exercise of their free will leads to disorder and destruction. Therefore, the politician (who is apparently not subject to the same flaws as the common man because of social status, education, and superior breeding) must direct society in a way that leads it away from its own destruction.

There are always those who resist being led. Free people don’t like to be told they have to do something, particularly when what they are being told to do makes absolutely no sense to anyone except the Progressive politicians in charge. The easiest way to stifle resistance is with a totalitarian central government, virtually unconnected to local individuals. It is far easier to treat those individuals as parts of the machine rather than freely thinking individual human beings with their own free will. This is not unique to modern ages. Every strong central authority in history has adopted parts, if not all, of this ideology. It is the specific reason why the founders sought to limit the federal government to a small number of explicitly enumerated powers. Oddly enough, those who still buy into the rhetoric of Democrat and Republican politicians actually believe the two parties have divergent end goals. Hopefully they wake up before its to late to realize that the argument is really between free people and Progressive politicians.

Atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation to meet in Seattle.

Some 600 people are expected at the annual convention of the outspoken Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is meeting in Seattle from Friday through Sunday.
By Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter

For Complete article See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010195429_atheist04m.html

I’m in Phoenix this week,dang. I would like to go, thanks for sharing.
http://www.ffrf.org/

600 hundred is the sold out limit and it sold out fast

Well, none of the groups that were called "freedom fighters" in the past by the U.S. government and media.

Not the Mujahedin – the group which later formed the Taliban.
Not the Contras – the group which committed acts of terrorism in Nicaragua.
Not the Anti-Castro exiles – who also conducted acts of terrorism including blowing up an airplane in flight
Not UNITA in Angola – the group of war criminals who once had Henry Kissinger’s support.

How about the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN)?

the between group degrees of freedom are 1, the within group degrees of freedom are 523. F=4.83, p=.028.

i have no idea bro

yahoo are having a lot of glitches~try again later or contact customer care @
http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/2009/09/08/bug-update-newly-created-groups-disappearing/
hope this helps

And when a military force targets civilians rather than say armed resistance fighters does that then in turn make the military force a "terrorist" organisation? Are they no longer military but rather terrorists, albeit in uniform?

If you ever figure that out, go tell the UN. They’ve been arguing about it for 60 years at least.

This is obviously a point of substantial debate in the international system, but I would say a good place to draw the line is targeting civilians. That’s what terrorists do (or at least they don’t focus exclusively on military targets). Many freedom fighter groups will argue they have to do this to exercise their rights to self-determination as no one will pay any attention otherwise. There are lots of other ways to define terrorism, and I would say many revolutionary groups cross those lines from time to time.

What african-americans thought freedom was?
What white people thought freedom was?
What women thought freedom was?
What Native Americans thought freedom was?

What were the different concepts from each group?

they all thought freedom was good.

I used to go to school with many pro IRA schoolmates. I wonder if anyone in yahoo answers supports a certain group and if so which ones and why?

Thank you

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

i agree with Terry, PLO, and all the factions that fight for the cause.
If the IRA are terrorists for fighting the british empire, then George Washington was also a terrorist for fighting Great Britain. Same situation but different timeline.

No doubt, some organisations diguise themselves and serve a financial , or a foreign countrys agenda, and are merciless in order pressure the governments for personal benefits.. But thats a minority

Ho-kay. Atwhay ethay ellhay areway ouyay alkingtay aboutway.

That’s pig latin for "What the Hell are you talking about".

Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, Porno Publishers, Atheists, Communists, Patriots, etc…? I’m just giving examples but my question is if you could stifle any person or group for exercising their Freedom of Speech, who would you you bestow this honor upon?

The whole point of freedom of speech is that everyone has it, if I wanted to stifle anyone’s freedom of speech, then I wouldn’t truly believe in it.