101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have

This was inspired by an exchange on Moonbattery, although for quite a long time I’ve been thinking about this. Left-wing progressives seem to care only about the “freedom” to do whatever they want to whoever they want in the bedroom. Once you step outside the bedroom, most every aspect of your life should be subject to the iron hand of the progressive state:

  1. The Freedom to keep what you earn and spend it as you please.
  2. The Freedom to take risks, and live with the consequences.
  3. The Right to participate in the political process by donating money to causes you support (like Proposition 8 in California) without being harassed by radicals
  4. The Freedom to work in a shop without belonging to a union.
  5. The Freedom to use a secret ballot when voting to unionize.
  6. The Freedom to express conservative opinions on talk radio.
  7. The Freedom to express conservative opinions as an invited speaker on a college campus.
  8. The Freedom to express conservative opinion on the internet.
  9. The Freedom to debate whether disparities in achievement among races and sexes is a product of genetics.
  10. The Freedom to question whether Global Warming is really happening.
  11. The Freedom to earn a market salary in the Financial Services industry.
  12. The Freedom not to be pressed into involuntary service to the state.
  13. The Freedom to purchase and drive an SUV or any other vehicle you choose.
  14. The Freedom to own a pickup truck.
  15. The Freedom to wear fur, leather, or other material made of a formerly living creature.
  16. The Freedom to hire whoever you want to work for you.
  17. The Freedom to fire an employee for any reason, or for no reason at all.
  18. The Freedom to rent a property you own to the person or persons of your choice.
  19. The Freedom to use your own property in whatever way that you may choose.
  20. The Freedom to earn a living by logging, ranching, fishing, or any other activity they don’t approve of.
  21. The Freedom to take risks with your own investments.
  22. The Freedom to keep the profits of your investments.
  23. The Freedom to join with others to criticize a politician within 30 days of an election.
  24. The Right to own a firearm.
  25. The Right to own a firearm arbitrarily designated as an “assault weapon.”
  26. The Right to use a firearm in defense of your home and loved ones.
  27. The Right to carry a firearm in public for your own defense.
  28. The Right to purchase ammunition for your firearm.
  29. The Freedom to discuss a military career with a recruiter at a public school or university, as well as the right to participate in ROTC.
  30. The Freedom to eat food made with transfats.
  31. The Freedom to smoke tobacco (but not marijuana, explain that to me.)
  32. The Freedom of a business to decide for itself whether it wants to be smoke-free.
  33. The Freedom for adults between the ages of 18 to 21 to consume alcoholic beverages
  34. The Freedom to purchase health care in a free market.
  35. The Freedom to publicly celebrate a Christian holiday.
  36. The Freedom to lead others of your faith in voluntary public prayer.
  37. The Freedom to hold a Bible study group in a public school.
  38. The Freedom to discuss the relationship between terrorism and Islam.
  39. The Freedom to choose a school for your child.
  40. The Freedom to homeschool your child.
  41. The Freedom for your home-schooled child to use public school facilities paid for with your tax dollars.
  42. The Freedom for male athletes to compete in any sport they want, even if it means there are more male athletes than female athletes within a school system.
  43. The Freedom for private schools to compete on an equal footing with public schools.
  44. The Freedom to fire an incompetent public school teacher.
  45. The Right not to have your legitimate vote canceled out by a fraudulent ACORN voter.
  46. The Freedom not to have your property confiscated by the state and given to another entity for higher tax revenue.
  47. The Freedom to develop domestic sources of energy.
  48. The Freedom to use coal-powered electricity.
  49. The Freedom to use nuclear-powered electricty.
  50. The Freedom to set your thermostat at whatever temperature makes you comfortable.
  51. The Freedom to protect your homes, schools, and hospitals from a flood of unassimilated third-worlders through legislation, propositions, and denial of welfare benefits to non-citizens.
  52. The Freedom to travel wherever you please, by any means you choose.
  53. The Freedom to have a private club open only to a membership of your choosing.
  54. The Freedom to operate a business with minimal interference from the state.
  55. The Freedom to discuss whether certain communities are responsible for their own problems.
  56. The Freedom to refuse responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of others and its consequences.
  57. The Freedom to practice work as an obstetrician without the threat of junk-science lawsuits from the likes of John Edwards.
  58. The Freedom to consume as much red meat as you like.
  59. The Freedom to watch news on a network that is not ideologically leftist.
  60. The Freedom to decide for yourself what is news, without the interference of ideological “deciders” (i.e. the editors and producers of television and newspapers).
  61. The Right to protest in front of an abortion mill.
  62. The Right to know whether your minor daughter is seeking an abortion.
  63. The Right to know whether your minor child is getting birth control from the school nurse.
  64. The Freedom to let the public decide the definition of marriage.
  65. The Freedom to light your homes with incandescent lightbulbs.
  66. The Freedom to use toilets that work with a single flush.
  67. The Freedom to use washers, driers, dishwashers, and other appliances that get the job done.
  68. The Freedom to raise your Family with your values, not theirs.
  69. The Freedom to non-abusively discipline your children with corporal punishment.
  70. The Freedom to object to textbooks and library materials in public schools paid for by your tax dollars and made available to your children.
  71. The Freedom to express the opinion that homosexual acts are distasteful, immoral, or unholy.
  72. The Freedom to ban pornography from your community.
  73. The Freedom to raise your children in a porn-free environment.
  74. The Freedom for ranchers to exterminate predators that spread disease and kill livestock.
  75. The Right to protest against the Teleprompter-in-Chief’s Trillion dollar deficits.
  76. The Freedom to publish editorial cartoons with monkeys in them.
  77. The Freedom to teach Huck Finn, Othello or To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Silas Marner, Ivanhoe, or other works in a high school class over the objection of ignorant politically correct dumbasses.
  78. The Freedom not to feel guilt about things done to other people, by other people centuries in the past.
  79. The Freedom to pursue private sector alternatives to state-provided services.
  80. The Freedom for religious charities to compete for grants on an equal footing with community-based organizations (shakedown rackets, I mean).
  81. The Right to criticize minority individuals for inferior performance.
  82. The Right of an asthmatic to use an aerosol based inhaler to save his/her life.
  83. The Freedom/Right to hunt animals for food or sport.
  84. The Freedom to advertise junk food.
  85. The Freedom to advertise red meat or dairy products on television.
  86. The Freedom to eat fast food or operate a fast food restaurant.
  87. The Freedom to own a black car or a big screen TV
  88. The Freedom to idle your car.
  89. The Freedom to own certain dog breeds
  90. The Freedom of cowboys to hold rodeos.
  91. The Freedom to enjoy NASCAR races.
  92. The Freedom of blacks, gays, and other minorities to become conservatives or Republicans
  93. The Freedom to critcize Islam.
  94. The Freedom to tell jokes about people of different ethnicities.
  95. The Freedom to tell jokes about people of different sexual proclivities.
  96. The Freedom to tell jokes involving stereotypes of women and minorities. (Note: It’s perfectly OK for a leftist like Jon Stewart, Seth MacFarlane, or Hillary Clinton to do this.)
  97. The Freedom to own jet skis or powerboats.
  98. The Freedom to own a snowmobile or other off-road vehicle.
  99. The Freedom to discuss the possibility, in a public school, that life is not a random evolutionary accident, but designed by a purposeful Creator.
  100. Your Freedom to use or produce whatever amount of harmless carbon dioxide you choose.
  101. The Very Basic Freedom to see the world in a different way than a liberal, progressive, Democrat, fascist does.
  102. (New) Your freedom to keep the housepet of your choice.


Filed under Uncategorized

78 responses to “101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have

  1. Pingback: 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have

  2. Wow, this did a fantastic job of reconfirming to me why I’m more liberal than conservative. Some of these could have simply been edited to say, “Freedom to be an idiot/jerk.” and “Freedom to be an idiot/jerk endangering the safety of others.” and “Freedom to think of yourself before others.” and “Freedom to be a 5-year-old unwilling to look into the future and foresee consequences and alter behaviour accordingly though what’s wise for the future may not be fun today.”

    When you say that any group wants to remove a freedom, those are strong words. How is anyone trying to take away your right to tell discriminatory jokes? Is there a bill underway of which I’m unaware?

    You didn’t think it necessary to support with citation the freedom to make a cartoon with a monkey in it?? Because that’s pretty general. Yep, it doesn’t get much more general than that.

    This was childish, petty, unconvincing, and unintellectual.

  3. Yes, Natasha, unfortunately, freedom means sometimes people are going to do things that you don’t like. I still prefer it to the tyranny of Progressive Puritans micromanaging human behavior, enforcing politically correct conformity.

    And I linked the monkey cartoon item to a site that explains why progressive fascists oppose this freedom.

  4. i may have to link to this – AFTER the tea parties tomorrow – what a thorough list!

  5. Natasha,

    Your own post actually endorses conservative/libertarian ideology. What could be more “short sighted” than serving immediate goals by violating the constitution, changing laws, and creating an environment where “group thought” is acceptable?

    The problem with liberal ideology is that it is circular. You think the government, the group, for the good of many is superior to people being left to their own devices. To make the case, you must assume that all of those people are good and trying to do the right thing. On top of that, you assume that the people being “helped” by policies like wealth redistribution and P.C. speech pressures are good. So, everyone must be inherently good. Right?

    And, if you believe that everyone is inherently good, then why not leave everything up to the individual? What not get rid of social services and replace them with privately run charities? You assume a benevolence and nobility to government that you do not extend to the individual or to private enterprise. What is your evidence for believing this? If you review history, it is not on your side.

    When you recast the movie playing inside your liberal head and replace the “evil corporate thief” with “corrupt bureaucrat” you will start to think like a conservative.

    None of us think Obama IS a dictator or a Nazi. But those of us with a command of history know that the Obamas of the world pave the way for much worse down the line.

  6. Nancz, I threw this list together in an hour… I’m sure I missed plenty.

    Most leftists aren’t so much willing to give up their own freedoms as they are willing to deprive others of theirs. e.g. Natasha.

  7. Yes, some people do flinch under the oppression of compassionate, sensible living. It’s funny to me that so often the Conservatives who bleat on about their lost rights and freedoms (disregarding that “rights” are largely legal and are supplied by our governments which also gift things to us we’re happy to take as if we’re entitled) are the same people who are happy to participate in religions full of commandments. You could argue that the two situations are different because even in religion, a choice exists. You can obey or disobey the Mormon Word of Wisdom– the choice is yours. The only consequence is a loss of your temple recommend and possible eternal reward, but the choice is yours. Likewise, you can drive without a seatbelt on… and get a ticket.

    I am in favour of laws that protect the well-being of the greater good to the detriment of a minority that wanna do what they wanna do because they wanna. I view these people like my children who only want a certain colouring book in a store because I said they can’t have it, not because the time they’d spend colouring in it would approximate the effort they put into getting their “right” to colour.

    Fighting something just because is illogical and childish.

    It’s my belief that one day Christ will return to the earth and the law of the land will become the law of heaven, with no divergence. Those who are unwilling to obey the law will leave. Those who will remain will WANT to do what is right, even if it conflicted with their wills before.

    Maybe the question people like you should ask themselves is: Why don’t I want to live “Progressive Puritan fascist” ideas? Is it because they aren’t backed by logic and good intention? Or is it because they’re demanding and intrusive?

    I don’t object to many of the above ideas because I think they make good sense. I only object to the elimination of my freedom to live as God wants me to live.

    No law can take away your freedom to choose.

    And besides that, you’re using strong language and exaggerating your points, to achieve outrage, instead of making solid arguments. You’re relying on a numbered list to overwhelm your audience into agreement. The only people who will be swayed by this post are those who already operate under the same fears and it reaffirms the opinions of those who disagreed with you. Seems like a waste of time and effort to me. If you really want to make a difference, try solid, logical arguments and people like me might be forced to say you made some good points.

  8. Leigh,

    Most of what you said didn’t make sense to me. Hey, maybe it’s just me.

    Firstly, to say that my itty bitty comment endorses an entire ideology was reeeeally overreaching. Are you saying that the above 101 points of contention only serve immediate goals? If so, then we should end the discussion here because we live in different realities. The purpose of most laws is to serve the greater good for now and the future. What you’re really debating is the difference in value between current legislations all their reasonings and the value of your freedom to choose.

    An example of an environment where group thought is acceptable is a democracy. An example of a dictatorship could be a society where a minority group of people do not allow a majority group to create laws that they feel protects themselves.

    This liberal majority that some people so despise are fighting to protect the “rights” of gay people, A MINORITY, to marry. It seems to me that this liberal majority government operates based on what seems right and appropriate. Whether they are right or whether they are wrong, it feels evil to demonize them for that.

    Liberal ideology is not circular according to the explanation you gave. Your explanation didn’t make sense because it was selecting examples that conveniently fit your idea that liberal ideology is circular. For your premise to be true, you should have been able to use any example of the liberal left trying to take away rights. For example the right to own a gun. Not all the people who want to own and conceal a handgun are good. So, the answer to your question “Right?” is NO. And the circle stops there.

    I don’t believe that all people are good, of course, and I believe that each law and philosophy should be weighed against its own merits. My personal political philosophy is not a package deal. I don’t believe everything that either liberals OR conservatives believe.

    You can’t take the concept of universal health care and its ultruistic roots and the concept of equal distribution of tax dollars to public schools and its ultruistic roots and discuss them in the same breath because they have a similar mindset behind them because they are different issues with a multitude of different factors that influence a multitude of different reactions.

    Each issue should be DEBATED on its own merits and logic and the best argument wins out in the end, and when that works, more or less, it’s called a democracy. And it’s a beautiful thing.

    Arguing with exaggerations and non-specifics and fear-mongering is an embarrassment.

    Gregory of Yardale: Bringing someone you don’t know into an generalised argument based on one little comment tells volumes about your ability to form a convincing argument and maybe even about your character. I am Canadian. I happily give up my right to own and carry a handgun because I know that gun crime is far less in Canada than in the U.S. and mass shootings are almost unheard of and I consider my sacrifice to be worth it. I also give up more taxes than you so that people like my single mother can raise her only child and make sure her cavities are filled. I do so happily.

    I’m less concerned about my own prideful “rights” than I am about what IS right.

  9. Natasha,

    Couple of points.

    We live in a Republic, not a true democracy. If this was a fair democracy, conservatives would probably be much happier because, when put to a direct vote, conservative ideals tend to win. You mentioned gay marriage (which as a Libertarian, I could care less about…go ahead, get married), time after time, the populace votes and gay marriage is defeated. Yet, courts intervene, the left becomes outraged and terrorizes gay marriage detractors (see California) and we are then told that the government is doing something for the good of society. That is not democracy in action.

    My point is not that all people are good. Far from it. I don’t trust society as a whole and trust myself far more. Of course, not everyone who wants a gun is good. But I am, so I should be allowed to own a gun. See?

    The fear is that if you take my logic and apply it forward, into the unforeseeable future, the society and its ideals are protected. If you apply liberal ideology forward you leave the country open to tyranny and the loss of liberty. Sure, now your ideas sound fluffy enough…but by giving the government the power to do fluffy things now, you open the door to bad things later.

    There are many, many, things that all rational people can agree are right and wrong. So why not leave it at that? Why put the will of any small group, no matter how “right” they feel they are above the views and rights of the rest of the country?

    And no, all things shouldn’t be considered on their own. We must have a structure. It’s called the Constitution. Additionally, many of these debates are interrelated. How can we discuss public school funding without talking about illegal immigration at the same time, given the impact of illegal immigrants on school systems in states like California and Texas?

    And, if you truly are a free wheeling independent, don’t fall into the trap of thinking things like redistribution, nationalized health care, or public schools are inherently good, even for the people who seem to profit from them. There are many, many flaws with these issues and often times the ones who suffer most are the ones who are supposed to benefit.

    Lastly, if you believe that all people are good, why do we need the government? Can’t we all take care of each other? Can’t you do a better job making sure that single mom gets dental care than some clown in Washington? Imagine the good that good people like you and I could do with more of our own money to spend!

  10. Leigh,

    It wasn’t “time and time again”. Gay marriage in California has only come up to vote… twice? I think? And I agree that the majority should rule and it should end there. Judges overstep their bounds and that’s wrong. But all you’ve done is prove that democracy is not working perfectly. Name one thing that does.

    You said that you are a good person who should be allowed to own a gun because you are good. Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to decide who is good and who is bad. Obviously. So, we have to either let people with bad intentions have guns so we can maintain the rights of ownership for good people or we attempt to keep the guns from everyone. With your proposed scenario, more people die. That’s hardly worth it. But we can debate gun control for days and I will get around to it on my blog some day….

    You say that with liberal ideology projected into the future, we’re leaving ourselves open to tyranny. Except that liberals and conservatives have been living together in the US for many years and I still don’t see this great tyranny you speak of. And anyway, “tyranny” is a subjective observation. What you might see as tyrannical, I may not.

    And anyway, you’re operating from a fear mindset. Why not debate each issue as it arrises and let it work itself out instead of whittle the country down to a few basic laws and let freedom otherwise reign because you’re afraid of how bad it COULD get??

    I didn’t say that a small group of people should decide what’s right for the country. I said that majority should rule.

    Why not leave the rational people to their own devices and let them choose for themselves? Because there’s no way to filter out who is rational and who is not and the innocent need protection from the irrational/criminal.

    You can have the Constitution and still debate each bill as it comes up for debate. I know it’s possible because it happens. If some things are interrelated then they must be considered at once but that was not at all the point I made. My point was that too many people mimic entire party lines when they define their political philosophies. ALL their values are liberal or conservative or Libertarian. I like to see people on blogs debate issues on their own merits and not because they feel like a hypocrite if they don’t perfectly tow a party line.

    How can you discuss equal distribution of public school funds without discussing illegal immigration? EASY. The rights of children who are legal residents of the country should not have to suffer because of children whose parents are there illegally.

    Welfare, universal health care and equal distribution of public school funds are all programs that take place where I live so I probably know a little more than you about their pitfalls and successes. NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT. But we are far better off than Americans. You don’t abandon a program that has the best of intentions and promise simply because it’s lacking in areas. You make it better.

    I don’t believe that all people are good. I think I made that opinion clear a few times. Of course I can’t make sure that some single mom gets dental care better than Washington can. I would need a system for fielding all the requests for my money and I’d also be put in a position to judge those who are worthy and those who are not. It’s impossible to have such a system on my own and that’s why I rely upon the system called Government. It’s also impossible for me to know who deserves my help and who does not so I err on the side of generosity lest I’m ever to blame for a child going hungry or a parent dying.

    The idea that individual citizens could adequately take care of the needy is silly and impractical.

    Besides that, DO you give your money to individuals to help them or do you fall back on the excuse that if you had more money that wasn’t being taken by the government then you would but right now you’re saving up for a flat screen tv?

    I give money through my taxes. I give 10% of my gross income to my church. Then I give more money through fast donations. Then I give more money to the humanitarian fund within my church. Then I give to people who come to my door. Then I give to friends and family in need. Then I give to strangers on the Internet like Stephanie Nielson of Nie Nie Dialogues.

    I give because I am blessed by God to have any of it. It’s not really mine to keep. My husband’s ability to make that money is owed to God everyday. So, we follow his command to care for the sick and the poor. And if, in the meantime, some of that money ends up being given to drug addicts and alcoholics via a government welfare system, well, that’s not for me to judge. It’s the best of the worst system we’ve got going right now and to abandon it because it doesn’t function perfectly is to behave with pride and immaturity.

    It’s all a matter of mindset. You could choose to view giving the way I do if you wanted to.

    I suspect that much of the time the people who make the argument that they’d like to have more from their paycheques so they can choose from whom they’d like to help, really wouldn’t end up helping anyone but themselves.

  11. I think it’s scary that you trust government the way that you do. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to have a nation of people who rely on some all knowing power to tell them how to live, how to spend their money and who to help.

    Name one thing, just one, that the government does better than the private sector. When a business is in trouble, it changes it’s business plan. When a government program is in trouble, it takes more from the citizens. Shouldn’t this government you look to be more efficient? Held to some standards? And if it is impractical to do so, shouldn’t government be minimized?

    So, because some people are evil, I should lose my ability to protect myself or my family? If some children in the classroom are slower and not as bright, should we focus on them and forget about the gifted children? Why should the organization of society be determined by our weakest most vial elements?

    Let me make it a bit more personal. I appreciate and respect your faith. I am quite familiar with Mormons as my girlfriend’s family is Mormon. Would it surprise you to know that many people who support many of the issues that you support find your religion particularly onerous? What will you say when these people determine that Mormonism is backward, not good for you, and particularly dangerous because it is so patriarchal?

    But, Leigh, you’ll say, we have the 1st Amendment. Nobody is pushing for that. I will counter that we also have the 2nd Amendment to protect my right to bear arms and numerous other Amendments that protect the very things that are up for debate right now. They haven’t come for religions…not yet.

    And no, we haven’t had a nation for centuries balanced by conservatives and liberals. Modern liberalism, what you characterize in almost all of your retorts is a new ideology. It stems from European liberalism and is in many ways antithetical to the American experience and ideals. We didn’t have half of the things you support before WWII, so our country has survived and prospered for a much greater time without them.

  12. Leigh, I already did name one thing that the government does better than the private sector: taking care of the poor. The only exception is the Mormon church who take care of all business better than any business or government, largely because most of it is run on volunteer effort.

    “Why should the organization of society be determined by our weakest most vial elements?” *choke* BECAUSE, that is what determines our humanity. Do you realize how much that sentence sounds like something Hitler would say?

    You’re also speaking from platitude after platitude instead of by real life examples. It’s all or nothing with you, it seems. Schools don’t have to focus on just gifted kids or slow kids. That’s the beauty of even distribution of funds: There’s more funding to work with. My kids go to a French Immersion public school. My son is very gifted and he’s very well cared for with an independent personal program. There are behaviour kids, handicapped kids and slower kids who all receive special care. A miracle!!

    Would it surprise me that a lot of liberals don’t like Mormons or Mormonism? Um, noooo. I’m Mormon. Who would know better than I?

    Again, I don’t believe in acting preemptively out of fear. But even if I did, I’d have to look at things sensibly and see that Mormons don’t kill people while guns do… and there are more people of faith in the US than not. PLUS, I have faith in God, right? So, I’m not worried.

    I didn’t say that modern liberalism has been around for centuries. I know it hasn’t. You say that European liberalism is antithetical to American experience and ideals like it is challenging the law of gravity or something. Your country has been ranked low on the UN’s list of best countries to live in for many years. That’s all I care about. How it functioned hundreds or even tens of years ago when so many factors were different from now and unmatchable, is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the US is failing. But drill it into the heads of the citizens everyday that it’s “the best country in the world” and they won’t notice.

    My beliefs are best characterized as Christlike.

  13. Ok. So you dropped a “you sound like Hitler” comment. Game over.

    I wonder how many of those countries ranked higher than the US have millions of people risking life and limb to enter them…and the UN is such a reliable source. I’ll be Saudi Arabia is ranked better. It’s great as long as you aren’t gay, or a woman, or a Jew….

    And no, the Government doesn’ t help the poor. Only awful, oppressive, and unfair societies would condemn huge portions of their population to poverty. Poverty should be a transient position. People should move through it, not live in it. That is where socialism fails.

    Above all Natasha, you should thank the Lord that people like me exist. People who are willing to defend freedom and liberty from those who seek to take it. We, not the socialist government that you believe in, allow you to live in a non-reality, safe from the real world outside.

    Best of luck and God Bless.

  14. Leigh, you have tried multiple times to make this discussion personal, instead of keeping to examples or logic.

    The fact that you were not even aware of the UN’s list until I mentioned it is so telling! Norway was #1 and I don’t think people HAVE to risk life and limb to get in because the countries who happen to be right next door (like Mexico just happens to have no where else to go but the US) also ranked high on the UN’s list.

    You sound like you know little about the statistics of your country, Leigh.


  15. Or rather, Norway was #1 the last time I checked. It might be Denmark now. All I know for sure is that Canada has ranked higher… for at least 8 years.

  16. cave ahht

    Sorry, but I stopped reading when I hit the one about the freedom to have a secret ballot when voting for unionization. #5. #4 is also suspect. And #10 is downright silly, like anyone is banning “questioning” what is happening on GWarming.

    Nobody, and mean nobody, has challenged the right to a secret ballot, they just added fast track joining as an option before a secret ballot comes into play.

    One problem with the secret ballot is that it enables the company to launch a anti-union campaign and to play all sorts of tricks in order to convince workers on how to vote. Why workers should be denied the freedom to just sign up for the union without the need for all that, is something you should seriously consider as a right worth protecting. The right to skip a secret ballot which might favor the company unecessarily.

    After reading up to #10, I vote that this is probably just right wing propaganda.

  17. retahhhd, the head thug of the Teamsters Union disagrees with you, as does the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and most other unions who have pushed for abolishing the secret ballot. And who protects workers against union coercion? Especially now that Democrats have gutted the agency that investigates Union corruption.

    Every item listed here represents a policy or a position advocated by one or more left-wing (i.e. fascist progressive) groups. But at least you admit that you didn’t bother to read before passing judgment.

  18. hpb

    It might be best to either fix the broken links or else remove them.

  19. The code for the links looks fine. It must be a WordPress problem.

  20. hpb

    Let me try to elaborate on the link issue that I see (FF3.0.5). If I click many of the links, I get “Sorry, the page you are looking for does not exist”.

    In #3, for example, I see a link of https://tehresistance.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/101-freedoms-and-rights-the-progressive-left-doesnt-want-you-to-have/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/pestered-prop-8-donors-file-suit/

    If I chop out this page’s portion — tehresistance.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/101-freedoms-and-rights-the-progressive-left-doesnt-want-you-to-have — I can reconstruct a working link.


  21. How about the freedom to be involved in gender exclusionary youth programs that bar persons with certain anti-religious beliefs or certain lifestyles, such as Boy Scouts?

  22. gary

    “rights” are largely legal and are supplied by our governments which also gift things to us we’re happy to take as if we’re entitled.

    This sums up the liberal making it easy to understand how they look at the world upsidedown.

    Has she ever even considered reading the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution?

    Bet she claims to quote both of them often.

  23. hpb – Yeah, I see that’s what happens. If you look at the source, there’s nothing that should be telling WordPress to insert that text. It’s just a plain link, so it must be some problem with their preview feature.

    As for Mr. Spkr, one may find it not to one’s liking that private groups have requirements for membership that not everyone can meet.

    But when the government orders a private organization to admit people, that, sir, is tyranny. Discrimination may be bad, but tyranny is worse.

    If atheists and homosexuals want to start their own organization where they can take young boys into the woods, they are free are to do so. No one is stopping them. But it’s tyranny to have the government force some other organization to suit them.

  24. Patvann

    Outstanding! *Stands, applauds* Bravo!!

  25. SK

    After cave ahht got his proverbial teeth handed to him over at MB by assorted posters, I now see he is clogging up the internets with his Left wing ‘thoughts’ here. LOL

  26. Don L

    “None of us think Obama IS a dictator or a Nazi. But…”

    There is little more deadly to a healthy moral society than someone who has no problem with slaughtering just-born babies, attacking personal consicience and seeking to put the Catholic Church out of the social care (FOCA) business(unless they like the Jihadists demand, convert)

    Why would people like him want good people like me to not own guns? What is it they intend to do to us that they must first take our guns away?

    I don’t know if Obama is a dictator or a Nazi – but I do feel (opinion) that we have never had such a dangerous and arrogant president in my lifetime. Why? Because he loathes traditional values America and has publically stated he will change it.
    (He seek no Constitutional authority to do so -just the power)
    If we have anything to apologize to Europe and the world for, it is the fact that we voted for such a man.

  27. James Dean

    Your list reminded me of all that has gone wrong with America. How it has changed since I was a kid. Many freedoms lost. Like the frog in the cooking pan, not noticing until it is cooked.

    In accord with the knowledge of Natasha, Jesus should have destroyed the Roman empire. Banned the stick (people can beat each other with them). Got rid of all those dirty carbon belching sheep and replaced them with safer veggies.
    She perfers a safe, sincere, homogenized world (like Romper Room) while she waits for Jesus to return and create a larger safer room of the world (like Romper Room).
    That’s great for her. But it’s not all about her. That is what liberals miss and you will never explain that to them.
    It’s like asking someone to enjoy the beautiful scenery of a mountain valley while they are looking into a mirror at their on face. Yes, they agree it’s beautiful but all they ever see is their own face. They really have no clue about personal freedom.

  28. bill

    You could have summarized that by saying that if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it ought to be legal; if it does, it ought to be limited.

    Oh, sorry, did I overlook The Right To Be Verbose?

  29. Bob

    Did you ever notice how Liberals can use paragraph after paragraph without actually saying anything?

  30. Notice the difference between the left and the right. The right emphasizes freedom and liberty, meaning what you are able to do but must take care of yourself. The left emphasizes rights (real or invented), meaning what you are owed and should be given by government.

    That’s a pretty key difference, I think.

  31. boqueronman

    “…disregarding that “rights” are largely legal and are supplied by our governments which also gift things to us we’re happy to take as if we’re entitled…” To have an open debate, it is first necessary to find some common ground. If this person actually believes ‘”rights…” are supplied by our governments’ there is no common ground. Most conservatives respect the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, with its Bill of Rights. This person probably doesn’t even know these documents exist. My suggestion to “her” is start with the DoI, then read the IXth and Xth Amendments, and then read the Constitution. After all, our “elected representatives” swear to defend it.

  32. MK

    You mean like the Bill of Rights?

    Rights mean exactly that, what you have the right to do. You have the right to free speech. See how that works? You also have a right to read books that will teach you things like what words mean, but you’re free to not do so. Let me guess what you’ll pick.

  33. Amelia

    Gender exclusionary programs? You mean, like Girl Scouts?

  34. Pingback: 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have « Teh Resistance Blog

  35. Pingback: UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Freedoms and Rights That Liberals Hate

  36. Pingback: 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have « Don’t Get Me Started…

  37. The left does not embrace our liberty nor our God given rights but authoritarianism and a push towards tyranny. They abhor our right to worship as we see fit, to own a firearm to protect ourselves or for hunting, they want to take more of our hard earned money to push their socialist agenda to enable them more votes, and they certainly don’t believe in state’s rights among other things.

    Great post, GoY and keep them coming, brother.

  38. LiberalOne

    I wonder why the links don’t work. (It’s not just in the preview, that happens when you click on the links too). Maybe you’re talking out your butt?

  39. Natasha
    You sound like you’ve just moved here from an old soviet gulag, and spent a fortune on a college education in philosaphy. Be advized, our rights come not from government, but from god himself. Now if you don’t believe in god thats your right. So if others believe in things that you disagree with, thats there right. The whole point of this article is not to start a philsophical comparison, but merely to share some opionated points. Lighten up your utopia is not what your liberal leaders intend, no indeed, they intend to attach us all to a yoke of tyranny, and have us worship in fear of their cult of personality.

  40. Bilwick1

    So Natasha . . . cut the crap and bottom-line it for us: your right to force what you think is right on the rest of us drives from . . . ?

  41. Marc

    I think you forgot to add the protocol to the external urls. Check that each one is prefixed with “http://” (without the quotes, of course), otherwise browsers think you are trying to link to something within your own site.

  42. Lisa

    If Natasha wants to give half her income to charity, fine. The problem is, I don’t want my government telling me I HAVE to–or who to give it to. I’m a Conservative in the sense that I believe that government is responsible for conserving the ideals set forth in the Constitution. Personally, I don’t see abortion or gay rights as a constitutional issue. I’m also an Atheist who firmly believes a person doesn’t have to be religious to be moral. I become frustrated by the fact that both abortion and gay rights seem to be deeply divided more according to religious beliefs, and that people assume because I am a Republican I embrace every one of their platform issues. I don’t. I am a Conservative because the “church” of Political Correctness, Diversity, and Identity politics see any personal desire as a “right” and are on the way to eroding every individual freedom we have. I defend anyone’s right to express the opinion that homosexuals are “unholy” or abortion is “murder.”
    It won’t , however, change the fact that people are gay and that some of us don’t consider a clump of cells to be a complete human being. (Late-term is another thing altogether.) I don’t want anyone, including my own party, to force any belief system on me.
    Particularly one that requires a third of my paycheck to facilitate that.

  43. lo

    progressive puritans? ..WTF is this guy talking about
    anyways, this list is stereotypical bullshit just like all the other broad-brush “liberal” or “conservative” B.S.

  44. Cylar

    I’m also an Atheist who firmly believes a person doesn’t have to be religious to be moral.

    I applaud your overall good sense, but I reject this position quoted, and always have.

    Without an objective moral code (one handed down by God), your “morality” is nothing more than personal preferences.

    End of discussion.

  45. Cylar

    progressive puritans? ..WTF is this guy talking about

    He’s talking about those who rigorously enforce the new politically-correct social norms – having the “right” position on issues of our time like Gore-bal wormening, gay marriage, and so on.

    anyways, this list is stereotypical bullshit just like all the other broad-brush “liberal” or “conservative” B.S.

    If you can’t comprehend the subject matter, please seek guidance and avoid commenting.

  46. J.D.

    I’m not sure that the central claim of this post is logically valid.

    The claim of this post is that left-wing progressives do not want people to have the freedoms thus listed. This is equivalant to the claim that that left-wing progressives do not want people to have freedom 1 AND freedom 2 AND freedom 3 and so on. This claim can be disproved by showing that one of the conjuncts is false.

    This is quite easy. If we take the 101st conjuct:
    “left-wing progressives do not want you to have the freedom to see the world in a different way than a liberal, progressive, Democrat, fascist does.”

    There is a distinction between ‘left-wing progressive’ and ‘adherent to the platform of the Democrat party’. We might imagine a Venn Diagram of the two, with some overlap in between. Obviously, those left-wing progressives who are not adherents of the platform of the Democrat party will not endorse the claim that we should not have the freedom to see the world differently to an adherent of that platform. Likewise, there is a distiction between left-wing progressive and fascist (with, I would think, very little overlap inbetween if we understand both terms correctly) and so the same point holds.

    Thus, as one of the conjuncts of the claim is shown false, the whole claim is false. (Certainly, some of the other conjuncts may well be true, but the claim was that all of the conjuncts were true).

    The secondary claim of the post was that:

    “Left-wing progressives seem to care only about the “freedom” to do whatever they want to whoever they want in the bedroom.”

    For something to seem like something else, it must appear that way to a given person (presumably, the person uttering the statement). Thus this claim can be translated as saying: “It appears to me as if left-wing progressives care only about the “freedom” to do whatever they want to whoever they want in the bedroom.”

    This claim then is perfectly consistent with the claim that left-wing progressives care about lots of ‘freedoms’. (Whatever a scare-quoted freedom happens to be).

  47. Half-clever, but entirely wrong. Every freedom listed here is opposed by some segment of the progressive left coalition. Because the left is collectivist by nature, the whole is brought to bear against any freedom opposed by one segment of it.

    For example, the environmental extremist camp may not have a particular axe to grind against home schooling. The teacher’s unions may not have a specific interest in banning snowmobiles from public lands. But in order to wield political power collectively, the environmental extremists have to make common cause with the teacher’s unions; so both home-schooling and snowmobiling are opposed by the collective. And so it is across every interest group that makes up the progressive left.

  48. Mark Russell

    A lot of these are actually restrictions of freedoms semantically repackaged as rights “to be free from” things one finds offensive. For example:

    #72. The Freedom to ban pornography from your community.
    #73. The Freedom to raise your children in a porn-free environment.

    The “freedom to ban” is an almost Orwellian reworking of the very concept of freedom. But perhaps the semantic retooling of the concept of freedom for their own purposes is nowhere more apparent than in numbers 70 and 77. Number 77 accuses liberals of denying children freedom by restricting access to textbooks and library materials they find objectionable. However, number 70 criticizes liberals for denying the freedom of parents to restrict children’s access to textbooks and library materials. It’s not that they’re for freedom of literary expression in public schools, but rather for the restriction of such freedom for their benefit exclusively.

    • In some cases, some freedoms have to be prioritized over others; the freedom of parents to choose whether to let their children have access to pornography or the absolute freedom of people of any age to view pornography. In this case, there are two overwhelming factors to consider 1.) The right of parents to raise children as they see fit 2.) the right of adults to restrict the access of minors to pornography. To a reasonable mind, these trump the “right” of minors to view pornography; just as a reasonable mind can make a distinction between works of literature (#77) and works of pornography. Apparently, Mark Russell is not in possession of such a mind.

  49. Mark Russell

    Cylar: Without an objective moral code (one handed down by God), your “morality” is nothing more than personal preferences.

    And what would you call your decision to follow your chosen religious moral code if not a personal preference? After all, presumably you weren’t forced to follow the moral code you’ve chosen, right? And there were many other moral codes to choose from, right?

  50. Mark Russell

    Gregory: To a reasonable mind, these trump the “right” of minors to view pornography; just as a reasonable mind can make a distinction between works of literature (#77) and works of pornography. Apparently, Mark Russell is not in possession of such a mind.

    Wow, when you miss the point, you don’t fool around, do you? The problem with the list isn’t the paradox between allowing kids to see certain works of literature and pornography, it’s the paradox of condemning liberals for being against freedom by wanting to see certain works of literature removed from their kids’ public schools (#77), while simultaneously complaining that liberals are against freedom because they are against letting parents ban certain works of literature from public schools. You see the problem there? You have two completely opposite and contradictory actions (wanting the right to have literature free from censorship/wanting the right to selectively ban literature) both defined as “freedom.” It’s an overtly hypocritical standard that would make Big Brother blush. It’s not that the author of the list is any more for the freedoms that he accuses the liberals of curtailing, it’s merely that he thinks his ilk ought to be the ones doing the curtailing.

    As far as pornography goes, every parent has the right to control their child’s freedom to view pornography. What they shouldn’t have is the right to control the right of every other man, woman and child in the community’s right to view pornography (#72). You might still advocate banning pornography. You might feel that banning pornography from the entire community, even from the hands of sovereign adults, is the only way to keep it out of your horndog of a son’s hands. You might even be right. But don’t tell me that’s “freedom.” something

  51. morecarbon.com is a website I built that deals with the issue of environmentalism vs freedom.

  52. My mother often says the most shocking things. For example, just the other day I mentioned that homosexuality had been removed from the DSM and in reply she said that ALL forms of sexual behavior had been removed from the DSM when that happened and that for years psychiatrists wouldn’t (or couldn’t) say or do anything when a person talked about engaging in dangerous behaviors like pedophilia. The problem of course is that these shocking things she says are almost never true, she’s just really bad about spreading rumors without bothering to do any research. She has access to the same Internet, she just doesn’t bother.

    There are a lot of rather vague generalities and wild inaccuracies in this list. The question of genes compromising the intelligence of members of a given race has been rigorously and thoroughly disproven with strong scientific evidence. I consider myself progressive and have no intention of attempting to outlaw arguing bad science like the Bell Curve. I’m not aware of anyone trying to pass such legislation. Although you can still find people even today who will argue that the earth is the center of the universe or that we faked the moon landing.

    There are a variety of points on this list that also run into questions of public health. Should it be a right for you to knowingly endanger the health of people who happen to be near you? Should it be a right for you to be able to punch them in the nose if you feel like it just because the damage isn’t permanent? We ostensibly have this “war on drugs” for the benefit of the public health. And I’m in favor of allowing people to smoke if they want to, but I’m also in favor of not allowing them to willfully damage the health of wait-staff in restaurants merely because they’re too selfish to walk 50ft to take their cigarette outside. Which is the lesser evil? Cancer for waiters and waitresses, or a 50ft walk to smoke a cigarette outside? Which person’s rights are more important in that scenario? The smoker’s right to “not be annoyed” (not aware that’s in the Constitution) or the waiter’s right to life?

  53. Alin_S

    I love this list. I think one that should be added is the freedom to post a list and not have liberals or “progressives” tell us why the list is wrong or that it’s incorrect. Anyways, I think most conservatives agree with the items on the list because we have encountered and witnessed these things in our lives. Nobody is saying that the govt is banning these, but those on the left sure would love to see it happen.
    Isaac Dealey – the business should have the freedom of choice whether to allow smoking, and waiters have the freedom of choice to not work there. It’s a simple concept, and government does not need to get involved. The only reason the govt gets involved because liberals want to impose their views and take choice away from the businessowner, ergo freedom of choice is banned.

  54. I read the whole comment thread to see if anyone else noticed/mentioned it, but I really needed to read no further than this:

    “I am in favour of laws that protect the well-being of the greater good to the detriment of a minority that wanna do what they wanna do because they wanna. I view these people like my children…”

    And that sums up the self-righteous, narcissistic, condescending attitude of the left better than anything I could have ever said.

    We our considered by them to be “children” who must be supervised and every facet of our lives regulated, because we are incapable of making “good” decisions…”good”, of course, being the exclusive domain of them…our superiors…our parents.

    “If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom. But what does freedom mean?
    It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit — regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters…”
    -Thomas Sowell

    The problem is, whether the “Natashas” of the world will admit it or are emotionally mature enough to face it, they are no better suited to determine what is “good” for society than anyone…in fact, the very fact that they view the world through this prism of faux superiority indicates that they don’t have the grasp on reality necessary to make those decisions even for themselves, let alone anyone else.

  55. Gov. Takes over I live in Calif. and think Natasha should stay and freeze in Canada let us take care of the U.S.A.When they run out of health care the Canadians run down to U.S. border and pay to have us care for them. Our Country is being ruined by Abortion as our Society is not growing enough to sustain us. Europe too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU Go here and watch our fertility rate is going so Roosters keep on trying to multiply yes you Hens too. It takes a Rooster and a Hen to make Chicks you Dummies?

  56. I find Natasha’s position particularly disturbing because she is LDS (Mormon), like me, and what she says doesn’t square with the teachings of the LDS scriptures or the words of our leaders from Joseph Smith down to the present day.

    In fact, the LDS position on good government is expressed in Section 134 of our book of Doctrine and Covenants, which you can find by clicking my name, above.

    It is also summed up in this passage, also from the book of Doctrine and Covenants, Section 98, verses 4-7:

    “And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
    And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
    Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
    And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”

    We view the Constitution as a sacred, inspired document. Joseph Smith even expressed in prayer his hope that it should stand forever. Anything which violates its precepts we should view as coming from evil.

    Natasha has a fundamental misunderstanding of our of our theology, which teaches that Lucifer (the Devil) presented an alternate plan before the Creation wherein he would become the Savior of mankind, rather than Jesus Christ. He said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”

    But for this plan to succeed, it would have been necessary that mankind give up their agency. That is not God’s plan, nor is it Christ’s plan. Mankind must be free to choose their way, without compulsion or force.

    Again, our Doctrine and Covenants, 121: 39 reads, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” This is why we value the Constitution so highly; men are prone to violate the principles of liberty, unless they are prevented from having access to power.

    One of our leaders, Ezra Taft Benson, even taught that Socialism is antithetical to Mormonism, and that no member of the Church in good standing can be a Socialist or a Communist.

    It is not the role of government to decide how men shall behave, other than to exact punishment for the commission of crime. Natasha’s position creates crime where none as been committed, thereby punishing the innocent. She doesn’t believe, apparently, in allowing people to be free, because doing so threatens society. She is wrong.

    Please don’t judge Mormonism by Natasha’s position, which is not consistent with the teachings of our leaders. Mormonism is much closer to American Conservatism than is Natasha’s personal viewpoint.

  57. tahDeetz

    “progressive puritans? ..WTF is this guy talking about”

    Prograzi is more appropriate for today’s marxist/progressive.

    Progress at all costs, to hell w/ the well-sustained opinion of others.

    We must progress to that O-topia of unicorn farts & pixie piss.

    Man can make a perfekt world through his good intent.

  58. Crystal

    Typical extreme view of conservatives from a socialist/colonial pointed view. You obviously have not done your research on this thesis. It is full of unsustainable theories. You lack Perspective.
    Every thing…. including the liberals and conservatives is not all black and white.
    Although this is passionate, it is also frenzied, and obsessive. Think more gray areas and you might get it.
    We all want change, but be careful what you ask for!
    Your ideas are not leadership material.

    I am a carbon base human and so are you.

    a person who favours or uses extreme or violent methods, esp. to bring about political change

  59. AWESOME!

    Well thought out and beautifully worded. Will pass this on to everyone I know.

    Five plus stars, my friend! MORE MORE! We want to hear more from YOU!

  60. Pingback: fiery dog

  61. SoPatty

    I’m a public school teacher (forced to be in the union but opted out of political contributions of m dues) and it’s such a depraved group politically…Our school has very little PTA, ergo no $$. (low-income school) A school closeby is wealthy, with a PTA budget of $80K! But when I tongue-in-cheek began a “sharing the wealth” discussion at an inservice, do you THINK these liberal teachers wanted to share a BIT of that PTA money with ours?!? NO! “Socializing” the PTA would be BAAAAAD…but puleeze “socialize” the government?!? Always looks good to these folks from far away….

  62. May I borrow that list for my site ?
    giving you FULL Kudos of course.
    Silly yet sadly true.
    I like the addition of #102. housepets.

    Fedzilla must not only stopped but reversed.

    • Thank you, Brother Slovik. And since the list seems to be growing everyday Obama is in power, I may have to do an addendum: 101 Rights and Freedoms under assault by the Obama Regime.

  63. Wasn’t this change Obamba was REALLY talking about?

  64. Pingback: Dirty Democrats » 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have

  65. Pingback: 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have « Teh Resistance Blog | Media Splatters.net

  66. Abogado Pete

    I was flabbergasted that Natasha said this:

    “’rights’ are largely legal and *are supplied* by our governments which also *gift things to us* we’re happy to take as if we’re entitled”

    Rights are supplied by our governments??????

    No. No. No. No.

    2,500 years of Western political philosophy on which our country was built absolutely rejects that line of thinking. From Plato to Madison. And a Magna Carta signed by a king at the tip of a sword in the between.

    Natasha presents a very frightening proposition. This goes beyond policy to an overarching philosophy that defines our individual liberty. If liberals truly believe that the state supersedes the individual, they need to say so outright and let us commence with correcting that mistaken perception.

    Rousseau explained our role within the social contract which we accept by choice. It is not “given to” us. We are not born with an obligation to the state.

    We are born with natural rights, some of which we cede by agreement in exchange for an ordered society created by man to preserve life, LIBERTY, and property. If any of these are sacrificed, we, as individuals, no longer have an obligation to the social contract.

    And excuse me for being extreme, but a failure to grasp the political relationship of man to state is what creates things like the Khmer Rouge, the Committee of Public Safety, the Soviet state, etc. etc.

    Man has not changed his basic nature. And but for the protection of liberty granted to us in the U.S. Constitution, we will fall into the same trap societies have fallen into since the beginning of time.

    An America that fails to teach this most basic philosophy to its citizens is destined for anarchy. America has become philosophically lazy, and it will bite us in teh ass.

    I am not born with an obligation to you. You are not born with an obligation to me. And neither of us is born with an obligation to the collective “we” of the state.

    Wow! Just … wow!

    P.S. Natasha stated that she believes in taking guns away from citizens. If you never understood why this is an untenable proposition and a right guaranteed in the Constitution, read what I’ve said above and connect the dots.

  67. oldhardhead

    Oh my gosh. Great list, great idea!



    Kudos to Teh Resistance, Oldhardhead

  68. Terri D

    .” Left-wing progressives seem to care only about the “freedom” to do whatever they want to whoever they want in the bedroom. Once you step outside the bedroom, most every aspect of your life should be subject to the iron hand of the progressive state”

    It’s a shame that this broad sweeping generalization should present itself prior to your 102 list. Despite the fact I agree, in principle, with probably 75% of your list I was completely repulsed by that comment. It was incendiary and self defeating. Intellectual, healthy, respectful discourse is part of what this nation was founded on. There are many issues and policies we could come to agree, in part, on. But no, keep the partisan mentality and we will never go forward we will only go reverse every four or eight years. A large portion of the current far right love to quote and interpret the founding fathers. If you do so don’t forget one of the key ideologies and goals was to form a “more perfect union”, not a cookie cutter society of Stepford hims and hers. We can get along, and owe it to ourselves to try harder.

  69. Pingback: 101 Freedoms and Rights the Progressive Left Doesn’t Want You to Have – Teh Resistance Blog « HOME – Other Right Links and Posts

  70. Pingback: To those who would 'boycott' the Tar Sands

  71. madmonq

    I grant you the freedom to shut the $^&# up

  72. Pingback: A Liberal Idiot Asks How the Obamacrats Are Limiting Freedom, and I Answer It « Good Morning Patriots

  73. DM


    You just don’t get it. You want to live the way you
    want to live and deny others the ability to live as
    they want to live.

    “Do as I say” is something you CAN NOT do.
    You can live as a PC person, but you can NOT tell
    someone they have to be PC. You can not be around the person who’s making you mad, uncomfortable or idiotic, though.

    Why you feel it necessary to tell me what I can and can’t say is quite fascinating to me.

    Here, let me call you some things you may not like (like I care):

    You stupid bitch, shut the fuck up and go live your life somewhere else if you don’t like true freedom.

    There. See how that is? Even if you don’t like it (and I’m sure you don’t) it doesn’t mean you have the right to say I can’t say it ….Hypocritical of you to say that too …as you’re essentially saying “I can say what I like to say, but you can’t!”.

    Get lost, get bent and shut the hell up.

    I’m done being nice to you retarded pieces of shit.


  74. DM

    Terri D,

    Excuse me..’interpret the founding fathers’? Are you an idiot? (you apparently are).

    They wrote what they wrote to be EASILY discernible by stupid people (apparently you’re lower than stupid). There’s nothing to interpret.

    They wrote it that way ON PURPOSE, you retard.

  75. Carol

    ““rights” are largely legal and are supplied by our governments which also gift things to us we’re happy to take as if we’re entitled”

    Like many others have pointed out, this is the sticking point of Natasha’s argument. I read nothing further than that, because anything after that is pointless. Rights are not supplied by governments, rights are supplied by life (i.e., the Giver of Live). The only thing governments can do is to take away, they can’t give.

    We’ve had a (yet another) packrat in our shed lately. He was happily going about his daily tasks of chewing through car wires, collecting cholla and other crap for nests, tearing up stuff, doing freely what packrats are born free to do. We set a trap, he got caught, so now he was under our control. We took away his freedom, his home, his food, caged him, and it was up to us to decide what to do with him. Fortunately for him, we released him in an open area. We could have killed him, of course, but now he’ll live another day, free to do freely what packrats are born free to do.

    We were the government. Happily for that critter, we were a peaceful, freedom-loving, life-affirming government. His right to live freely as nature intended him to live was given to him in the first place by God, not by us. We could only take it away. Sadly for us, our government(s) are not so benign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s