A recent article titled “When You’re Talking You Ain’t Learning,” How Do You Define Freedom, Issue 722, seems to have stirred the intellectual nettle of some of my readers, and any discussion about Freedom deserves more attention.

I have written many articles relative to the meaning of Freedom, and for myself accept the definition, “Freedom is self-responsibility and self-control, no more and no less than just that.” A definition which covers a multitude of areas, relative to just about everything we do and think. It’s not the definition that’s being questioned, instead, it’s where the understanding of it comes from.

It’s my position that one of the main underlying causes this nation is in the state it’s in, i.e., on the verge of collapse of the Principles upon which it was founded, sinking into socialism, because there’s a misunderstanding about Freedom, and not much interest in learning about it. It’s certainly not taught in the socialized public school system, and most parents are products of the same system. Therefore if the parents don’t understand it and it’s not taught in schools, how is the individual going to know what Freedom really means?

For many, those joining the military means they are going off someplace to fight for Freedom. I too believed that at one time. But such is not the case; soldiers are joining up to fight political wars for nation-building in foreign countries. I was personally married to a professional soldier, who fought in three wars, and I can truthfully say he never really understood the meaning of Freedom. But he loved the paternalism of military life, fighting and flying.

I am prompted to write more on an understanding and misunderstanding regarding Freedom as a result of an observation from one of my readers who wrote: “I think humans have an inborn understanding of and hunger for Freedom, and that takes a lifetime of brainwashing, starting from an early age – to make them forget what they instinctively knew.”

I’m not in agreement with that premise. It defies the definition that Freedom is self-control and self-responsibility, because we are totally dependent on others for survival, the day we are born. Others feed us, bathe us, providing food, clothing and shelter, until we learn to take care of ourselves. We are protected and nurtured by others, until we are emancipated.

From observation of young children, there does appear some innate quality of ownership of property inborn in a human being, because the very young will resist others when that which belongs to them is snatched away. Despite the fact ownership of property is an essential to life and Freedom, it does not define freedom, but is an essential part of it.

And even that which constitutes ownership must be taught. That is the underlying rule of ownership, being in control of a thing with a boundary.

Can’t own anything without a boundary, and absent control of it. Take for example the house you buy and pay for, with deeds in hand, most think they own their home, but in fact they do not. Only possess it, while outsiders, who have never paid a cent into it, stipulate the rules and regulations, while demanding payment from the one in possession. In most areas of the United States, one cannot add a roof, a deck, renovate a room, or chop down a tree without permission from some other government entity.

I have a neighbor who installed a new roof on the home he believed he owned. A city agent appeared and informed him it did not meet city codes and my neighbor had to tear off his new roof and replace it with one that met the requirements of another who had not invested one cent in his property. He thought he owned. It had a boundary but he did not control.

I definitely believe Freedom is a gift from our Creator given to everyone, however, the responsibility for sustaining must be learned, either by discovery or taught. And none of us are born knowing what that responsibility and self-control is. I do not believe we understood its meaning when we were born and brainwashed into ignorance about its meaning. However, I do agree, the school system indoctrinates, with brainwashing techniques right out of Marxist teachings, which prevents the student from ever understanding the the real meaning of Freedom.

Anymore than we are born knowing how to drive a car. We must learn how to operate the vehicle, which carries with it self-responsibility and control of it. If the vehicle is not operating properly most take it to a mechanic, because they know not how to repair for proper operation. Not because they once knew the mechanics, and were brainwashed out of the knowledge.

Similar to Personal Freedom, we might be living and driving around in our proper lane, until something goes amuck, then we have no clue as to what’s wrong. There’s no garage nor a mechanic to take ourselves to, when we are off course or broken down needing repair as a result of our ignorance, relative to understanding freedom. Not a matter of recalling knowledge we were born with. The bottom line is we were never taught its meaning, via schools nor parents in most instances. And not really necessary, so long as we have mechanics to take for repair.

I personally spent seven years doing little else aside from studying and seeking teachers and mentors to teach me the meaning of Freedom, then taught my children. Information relative to its meaning is available to anyone who desires to know, through books and teachers, but must be sought in order to learn. The very first step is an admission of not understanding its meaning.

As one commenter stated in response to my last article: “They are in a state of denial and delusion. Its willful ignorance in my opinion.”

I took a course in home economics to learn how to make a dress, and had an art instructor to teach me how to paint, and found an instructor to teach me how to drive a vehicle. I was not born with that knowledge and brainwashed out of the knowledge.

I grew up on a farm, enjoying a lot more Freedom than we have today, but no one taught me its meaning. I went seeking Knowledge about it after being held in a Japanese jail, as the result of being a passenger in a car that hit a child. Being interrogated by Japanese, asking me such questions as,”Do you belong to the Communist Party?” shocked me into the reality of misunderstandings about political governments, in general and the real meaning of Freedom in particular. This was in the fifties, and when released, I left with a determination to learn about both.
It’s in this connection, I would argue the majority do not understand the meaning of Freedom, and have never known its true meaning. And maintain it’s a learned way of life. Available to anyone who desires to know.

To suggest we once knew its meaning and somewhere along the line were “brainwashed” out of the knowledge of it, is ludicrous. And roadblocks one into to thinking its just a case of remembering a philosophy we once knew, when such is not the case.

I recall talking to a girlfriend in high school, when she asked me what I wanted out of Life. Wherever it came from, I don’t know, but replied, “sovereignty of myself.” Never realizing as a teenager, it was Freedom I wanted and had no understanding of its real meaning at that time.

Ask any school kid for their meaning of Freedom and listen carefully to their answer. Ask your neighbor or best friend the meaning of Freedom, and discover for yourself, few know its true meaning.

This election year, most of the news is on the upcoming election and current politics, when it’s only an understanding of the meaning of Freedom that will get us out of the Socialist ditch we are in.

If the thinking is that we once understood it and were brainwashed out of the knowledge of it, that is a sure formula to keep us in the Socialist lane of thinking.

Where, when and how were we steered away from the principles of freedom this nation was founded upon? There’s where we must start, before we can expect to regain that which we have lost, once living in a country that provided the greatest good for the greatest number known to civilized man. Just over 200 years ago, the foundation to be free was laid by those who pledged their lives and fortunes, to leave a legacy for us we have squandered.

None of us are entitled to sit back and do nothing but vote, every individual in this country has a responsibility to understand the meaning of Freedom. To pass on to the next generation. Understanding the meaning of Freedom, is not something anyone needs permission from anyone else to learn its true meaning. It’s nothing more and nothing less than a decision to discover, then taking the time to learn its real meaning.

As Dr. Phil says, “One cannot change that which one does not acknowledge.” For anyone not to acknowledge we are living under a system of Socialism, which is the antithesis of Freedom, has their head in the sand and ignorant of the reality of where we are in this once great Nation.

To believe we can vote ourselves out of the conditions we have voted ourselves into, ignores reality. Our only hope is an understanding and practice of Freedom, which can change the direction we are headed.

The term “brainwashing” is a word that got into the dictionary quicker than “sputnik,” and I certainly understand it’s meaning, inasmuch as I had a copy of the original paper written by Dr. Meyer, who treated the American soldiers brainwashed during the Korean war. I visited the hospital in Japan where he treated with “de-programming.” Admittedly,there is much going on many have been brainwashed about, however the meaning of Freedom is not something we once understood and brainwashed out of, because the fact of the matter is the majority have never comprehended its true meaning, in the first place. Not a matter of re-call, but learning new.

It’s not rocket science, but a simple philosophy, which must be learned to understand. And must be understood before knowing the degree of bondage this nation of 300 million-plus is in currently.

On February 12, 1865, Abraham Lincoln said: “The people are the rightful masters of both Congresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Let me start with a story. A man who had survived the great Johnstown flood died and went to Heaven. And not long after, all of the inhabitants of Heaven were allowed to take center stage and tell everyone about the most significant event that had happened to them while on Earth. The man couldn’t wait to tell everyone about his surviving the great Johnstown flood. After a long wait in line, it was finally his turn. The man was so excited to tell everyone his story. But just as he was climbing the stairs to the platform, an angel leaned over to him and whispered, “Don’t forget; Noah is in the audience.”

I am reminded of that story when I read the Scriptural passage in Hebrews 12: “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses.” The witnesses the Apostle speaks of are the great champions who have gone on before us, which are mentioned in chapter eleven. Included by implication in the great “Hall of Faith” of Hebrews 11 are the three young Hebrews: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (verse 34, “Quenched the violence of fire.”)

So, what was it that got these three young men included in this list that along with the likes of Abraham, Moses, and David? You’ll find their story in Daniel chapter three. In a nutshell, they refused to bow down to the image of the king. In other words, THEY DISOBEYED A CIVIL GOVERNMENT THAT HAD BECOME TYRANNICAL. And for refusing to submit to the king, they were thrown into a burning fiery furnace.

Come to think of it, many of the people named in the Hebrews 11 “Hall of Faith” got there because of civil disobedience. Speaking of Moses, the Scripture says, “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king.” So, when did Moses forsake Egypt? When he killed the Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave to death. That’s when!

Rahab is also mentioned in this Biblical “Hall of Faith.” Who was Rahab, and what did she do? She was a prostitute who lied to government soldiers and helped the Hebrew spies escape the city of Jericho. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthae are also listed. Who are they, and what did they do? They were men who led armed rebellions against oppressive governments to which they had been subject.

Daniel is inferred in Hebrews 11 when it says, “Stopped the mouths of lions.” What did he do? He refused to submit to his civil government when commanded to not pray aloud (for only thirty days). And for refusing to submit to his government, he was cast into a den of hungry lions. Yes, God delivered Daniel from the lions and the three young Hebrews from the burning furnace of fire. But the point is, they each DISOBEYED civil government, and God brags on them for it in Hebrews 11.

So, what are all these “Romans 13-ers” going to say to Daniel, Moses, and Gideon when they get to Heaven? What are they going to say to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? What are they going to say to those men who “overthrew kingdoms” (Heb. 11:33), “waxed valiant in combat” (vs. 34), and “turned to flight . . . armies”? (Armies are government-sanctioned, government-supported, government-ordered entities–vs. 34.)

I cannot count the number of times I have heard some TV or radio preacher say something to the effect, “Well, I’m glad we were given freedom here in the United States, but our Founding Fathers were wrong to rebel against the British Crown. According to Romans 13, they should have submitted to King George.” Barf! Gag! Spit! What hypocrisy!

To all of the Romans 13 Pharisees out there, I say, if you are really going to believe and preach that garbage, at least be honest enough to stop celebrating Independence Day on July 4. It was the day when men became traitors to Great Britain and officially declared a revolutionary war. And stop flying the Stars and Stripes in your church auditoriums. It was the flag of rebellion. How dare you say America’s founders violated Romans 13 in one breath and with the next breath say you thank God for the freedom that was purchased AT THE SACRIFICE OF THE BLOOD OF THE MEN YOU SAY VIOLATED ROMANS 13! Pardon me, but I just cannot think of anything that is more hypocritical than that!

And remember this about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: it was AFTER they disobeyed their king and were thrown into the furnace of fire that they met the Son of God. It was King Nebuchadnezzar who said, “I see four men loose . . . the fourth is like the Son of God.” (Daniel 3:25)

Think about it: where did Moses meet the Lord? In the wilderness by a burning bush after he had defied Egyptian tyranny by killing an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave to death. Where did Gideon meet the Lord? In a threshing floor as he willowed his grain in defiance of evil civil authority. When did Stephen meet the Lord? When political and religious leaders were stoning him to death for refusing to submit to their iniquitous injunctions. And think of this, too: where did the Lord Jesus meet man? On a bloody Roman cross–being placed there by the civil and religious rulers of His day.

Most Christians today are looking to meet the Lord in a heated or air conditioned church sanctuary with padded pews and ornate windows, with an orchestra playing and a choir singing, and fried chicken waiting for them after the service. But that’s not where you’re going to find the Fourth Man.

When you resist the religious Pharisees who are trying to intimidate and coerce you into submitting to their legalism and tyranny, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you resist the power establishment that demands that you accept their politically correct philosophies and ideologies, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you refuse to be bought, bribed, or bullied by the “good old boy” network that seeks to control you, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you resist your family and friends who try to shame you into abandoning the principles of liberty and freedom that God, Himself, has planted in your heart, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you are threatened and persecuted and you say, “I must obey God rather than men,” then you will see the Fourth Man.

Do you really think you’re going to find the One who went to a bloody cross in a meadow of roses? The only roses He knew were the ones whose thorns were smashed on his skull. You won’t find him in a garden, unless it’s the Garden of Gethsemane. You’ll find the One who went to the Cross in the same place that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego found Him: in the Burning Fiery Furnace.

God said told us that when we pass through the floodwaters, and when we walk through the fire, we would find Him to be with us. (Isaiah 43:2)

Of course, let me be careful to say that real Christians are peacemakers. They desire to live a quiet and peaceable life with their neighbors, their civil authorities, and even with other nations. They readily recognize and respect lawful, God-ordained authority. But, at the same time, they will not surrender that which is holy and give it to swine! They absolutely will not become toadies for unlawful government that attempts to usurp the God-given authority and jurisdiction to which it has been divinely assigned!

I am often reminded of this quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “There are, I am sorry to say, many Temples in our midst in this country which are no better than brothels.”

Gandhi’s quote could be said of many so-called churches in America today, for they, too, have become little more than glorified brothels that pimp for the government. “Submit! Obey! Don’t resist!” they constantly preach. I wonder what they will say one day to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

The world of politics in America seems to be all about the fantasy that there is a substantive philosophical difference between Conservatives and Liberals. I have already written an article about conservatism, entitled “Conservatives Aren’t.” You can find that article posted on April 18th.

Today, I’m going to pick on Liberals.

Let’s start with my definition: Liberalism is a political philosophy that promotes the infinite growth of the State until it ultimately becomes totalitarianism. Liberalism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Liberals are threatened by true liberty and the freedom of the individual, preferring the grouping of people into special interests that need protection by the State.

Today’s political liberalism is not to be confused in any way with Classical Liberalism, which emphasizes individual rights, natural law and equality of opportunity. Today’s liberalism is exactly the opposite of Classical Liberalism.

Liberals believe that the State knows better how to spend the individual’s money than the individual does. Therefore, Liberals support ever-increasing levels of taxation.

Liberals believe that the Constitution is a “living document,” and for the most part, should not be interpreted strictly like the writers intended. Consequently, the Amendments in the Bill of Rights beyond Amendment Ten are efforts at social engineering. But at its truest foundation, liberalism understands (better than conservatives) that the Constitution has no authority whatsoever, and that liberals and conservatives may both ignore it at will and do what they please.

Liberals believe that tax policy should be used to promote certain societal behavior, and punish other behaviors. That is why you see tax credits and tax deductions sprinkled throughout new legislation.

Liberals are not content to allow the individual States to exert control over the Federal Government, but wish to see an ever more powerful Federal Government controlling the States.

On the social issues like abortion, civil rights, “gay” rights, gun control, etc., liberals are not found embracing individual rights, but once again, believe in the power of the Federal Government to force society to change under the threat of death.

And, finally, Liberals and Conservatives believe the same things. Just look at what they have done to America over the last 100 years. Ever encroaching and growing Federal Government and ever shrinking individual liberty are their legacies.

In the end, the only fight that truly exists between Liberals and Conservatives is who gets to write the checks. It is NEVER about whether the checks should be written, only about who writes the checks.

Dump DC: Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012: Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

It took a debate that stretched to nearly seven hours, and votes on over a dozen amendments, but the U.S. House of Representatives finally approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act on April 26.

Passions flared on both sides before the final vote on CISPA, which cleared the House by a comfortable margin of 248 to 168.

CISPA would “waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity,” Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat and onetime Web entrepreneur, said during the debate. “Allowing the military and NSA to spy on Americans on American soil goes against every principle this country was founded on.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and author of CISPA, responded by telling his colleagues to ignore “all the things they’re saying about the bill that are not true.” He pleaded: “Stand for America! Support this bill!”

While CISPA initially wasn’t an especially partisan bill — it cleared the House Intelligence Committee by a vote of 17 to 1 last December — it gradually moved in that direction. The final tally was 206 Republicans voting for it, and 28 opposed. Of the Democrats, 42 voted for CISPA and 140 were opposed.

Read more at this link.

PayPal Donations: http://tinyurl.com/DonateAnCapChase

In this video we will define the tenets of Voluntaryism and contrast them with its antithesis: the State!

Subscribe to www.YouTube.com/AnCapChase
Luke Bessey’s Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/lukebessey

In its history, America has experienced two major periods of drug prohibition. This first was the Federal alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933. The second is the current war on drugs, which began in 1971.

According to Prof. Angela Dills, during these periods of prohibition in America, both homicide rates and police enforcement costs increased. This makes sense, as prohibitions never actually eliminate use. Rather, prohibitions convert peaceful and legal markets into black markets. In black markets, when disputes arise over sales territory, product quality, or money, the government legal system is not available. This forces drug dealers to resolve disputes on their own, which often leads to violence.

The violence of black markets, along with the enforcement of drug policy, attracts the attention of law enforcement. Law enforcement is costly, and the time spent enforcing drug laws could have been spent preventing other crimes like murder, theft, and rape. Drug prohibition not only generates more violence and increases the cost of law enforcement; it also distracts law enforcement and puts citizens at greater risk of crime.

by Sheldon Richman, Reason

So the presidential campaign is shaping up as a contest between a Democrat who says we had a free market from 2001 through 2008 and a Republican who . . . agrees—he says “[w]e are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy.” You can’t cease to be something you never were.

Thus Barack Obama claims and Mitt Romneyimplicitly concedes that the free market 1) has existed and 2) therefore presumably created the housing and financial debacle. This bodes ill for advocates of liberty and voluntary exchange.

Notice what will happen if this framing is widely accepted: Genuinely freed markets won’t make the list of feasible options. That will leave us with mere variations on a statist theme, namely, corporatism. How will voters choose among them? Most of those who abhor “socialism” (however they define it) will rally round Republican corporatism because of the pro-market rhetoric, while most who abhor the cruel “free market” (“Look at the hardship it created!”) will rush to Democratic corporatism because of its anti-market rhetoric.

And the winner will be: Corporatism. (That is, the use of government force primarily to benefit the well-connected business elite.) The loser? The people, who would benefit from freedom and freed markets—markets void of privileges and arbitrary decrees. That’s what maximizes consumer and worker bargaining power and enhances general living standards.

No Fundamental Difference

Read more at this link.

As hard as it is to believe, the state of Arizona could find itself in similar company with communist and hardline countries like China and Syria, if a new piece of legislation recently passed by the state Legislature is ever signed into law by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.

According to reports,Arizona House Bill 2549, which is aimed at targeting cyber-bullying, electronic harassment and stalking, was pulled by supporters following a national uproar over what many view as its invasive provisions and First Amendment implications.

Meant to outlaw “obscene, lewd or profane language” when communicating with an electronic or digital device, or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to “terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend,” the measure was lambasted for being too far-ranging.

Criminalizing ‘irritating’ speech?

In a letter to Brewer, First Amendment-rights groupMedia Coalitionasked her to veto the bill, if it ever makes it to her desk in its current form, to “allow legislators to craft a narrower bill that addresses their concerns without infringing on the right of free speech.”

Media Coalition, in its letter, said it was speaking on behalf of “many members throughout the country, including Arizona: publishers, booksellers and librarians, makers and retailers of recordings, films, videos and video games.”

“Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people,” the letter states.

“The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person,” it said.

Despite the bill’s obvious First Amendment implications, backers are still singing its praises.

“We believed we were moving forward in good faith,” said State Rep. Vic Williams to thePhoenix New Times. He said lawmakers had received a number of “legitimate concerns” and a number ofillegitimateconcerns, though he didn’t go into detail about what those were.

Still, Williams appears to be at least acting in good faith. He’s been in talks with Media Coalition executive director David Horowitz about the bill, and Williams says he’s willing to work the kinks out – though he maintains that legislators still want to find some way to protect people from undue harassment andelectronic trolling.

‘Critical’ issue?

Worse, he has sought to demonize some critics of the legislation, derisively labeling them “conspiracy theorists” who are coming out of the woodwork to derail the measure. He hasn’t provided many specifics about what he has called the “black helicopter crowd,” but he says they’re “not helping move a critical issue forward.”

Critical forwhom? Is this such a huge problem in Arizona it requires the violation of a fundamental constitutional protection in order to effectively deal with it?

The greatest danger to the liberties and freedoms Americans enjoy is the lack of willingness among our elected leaders to “do the right thing” and simply observe the Constitution and its various protective provisions. Our founding fathers were not without their own personal flaws but generally speaking they were men of integrity, and as such were fully able to resist the seductive lure of gathering power unto them and rather, designing a government “of the people, for the people, by the people.”

Since there is nothing new under the sun – including human nature – such deference to the masses required an incredible amount of humbleness and self-restraint.

Measures like the one being considered in Arizona – and the scores of similar federal laws and proposals – are evidence that the kind of integrity and self-restraint characteristic of our founders has long since disappeared from today’s American leaders.

And that is the real enemy of freedom.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.mediacoalition.org

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com

http://mediacoalition.org

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035567_Arizona_censorship_internet.html#ixzz1sBG7BsEN

by Naomi Wolf, Guardian

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the “trespass bill”, which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Is American strip-searching benign? The man who had brought the initial suit, Albert Florence, described having been told to “turn around. Squat and cough. Spread your cheeks.” He said he felt humiliated: “It made me feel like less of a man.”

In surreal reasoning, justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this ruling is necessary because the 9/11 bomber could have been stopped for speeding. How would strip searching him have prevented the attack? Did justice Kennedy imagine that plans to blow up the twin towers had been concealed in a body cavity? In still more bizarre non-logic, his and the other justices’ decision rests on concerns about weapons and contraband in prison systems. But people under arrest – that is, who are not yet convicted – haven’t been introduced into a prison population.

Our surveillance state shown considerable determination to intrude on citizens sexually. There’s the sexual abuse of prisoners at Bagram – der Spiegel reports that “former inmates report incidents of … various forms of sexual humiliation. In some cases, an interrogator would place his penis along the face of the detainee while he was being questioned. Other inmates were raped with sticks or threatened with anal sex”. There was the stripping of Bradley Manning is solitary confinement. And there’s the policy set up after the story of the “underwear bomber” to grope US travelers genitally or else force them to go through a machine – made by a company, Rapiscan, owned by terror profiteer and former DHA czar Michael Chertoff – with images so vivid that it has been called the “pornoscanner”.

Read the rest here.