That is not liberty, but slavery. Liberty is the ability of the individual to pursue happiness through self-interest, free enterprise (that is, free market capitalism, "free" meaning unencumbered by regulation). Liberty is the ability to speak freely, not within a context of so-called "political correctness". Liberty the the freedom to associate with who you will, as well as who you will-NOT without social or legal sanction.

Liberty is the respect of individual rights; rights come from God and cannot be infringed, but the respect of rights of others is the knowledge that our rights end where the rights of others begin. (Therefore, special rights demanded by minority groups is an evil infringement on the rights of citizens). Liberty is having those rights protected by government, that they cannot be taken from you without due process of constitutional law, not precedent of some radical judge or low-information jury.

Liberty is the freedom to be hired by an employer for your abilities, not your politics, persecution of which is rampant now to de-fund the lives of those who do not espouse so-called "political correctness". Liberty is the freedom to earn property from one's labor and to trade it freely. Keeping it is not a freedom; rather, taking it from one who has earned it is a crime. Should not taxation then be voluntary? Isn't that what the tax code really says?

Liberty is also the freedom to invent technology, to use the resulting tools from said tech, and to own those tools as personal property under the freedom of property ownership, that something can be owned and not taken away. One could go on and on about what Liberty is... but who ever defines it by what it is not or in negative terms? This is to mean that the free man has certain rights to do wrong, for which he also has the right to be punished for. Is this not why we have a penal code, that is (for the low-information voters out there), penalties for doing evil post facto. Is this not the only way Liberty can be maintained?

I am surprised that Rush Limbaugh himself can't seem to bring himself to address this issue on the air, if it even crosses his mind. The fact that a guy like me can't seem to get through on the phone, nor be put on the only time I did, limits the conversation that we really should be having in this country. All this talk of banning things, preventing crime or events like the recent shootings or bombings... The thought process that the "government will save me" or the expectation that government should do anything legislative when these crimes happen. All that can be done in a free-society without damaging Liberty is PUNISHMENT of the evil-doers, which, when publicized, is itself a partial-deterrent to breaking the law. That's it. Why? Because LIBERTY can also be defined as the CAPABILITY TO BREAK THE LAW. The other partial-deterrent to this capability is MORALITY. When you ban things or legislate prevention, what does that say about society's opinion about the average citizen, that everyone is a potential criminal? Really? Is this not how the government sews mistrust among the people? If you can't trust other citizens, who can we trust, the government? The only way prevention of crime or "bad events" can happen in total is via an outright police-state, wherein the presence of the government is everywhere with the capability to act quickly against any evil act that is brewing. Well, with that much power who says the government would act against evil? Wouldn't it become political very quickly? Does the government even know what evil is vs. good when we look at what they're teaching in government schools? I say no! Therefore, who should trust the government to do good? Remember, we have a President who does not do his job, does not enforce the law, only calls for more and more laws, which he will employ later when he's been given enough power through this process. We need to get back to citizens trusting citizens and knowing where that comes from.

I trust in God first to show us good, then trust is possible in those who have also learned what is good AND committed themselves to doing good through humility (since pride does not recognize the need to learn what is good, only what is "good for me" which may not be "good for you"). Morality training used to happen via the family and the church with the schools working in concert with them, not against them. We called it a good education. This society changed the world, won world wars, and spurred the greatest expansion of technology, productivity, and living standard in all of world history. Then the Left got a foothold in our society.

Since rights end where the rights of others begin, every citizen should be taught to be considerate of others, but this doesn't seem to happen in our country today. We call this "learning what is good", morality training, the good being MORALITY. Even atheists can learn morality. They used to use the Bible as a philosophical textbook for it's ethical value. Such atheists (or even agnostics) can subscribe to a moral code found within our founding documents and defend them because they know our country and it's First Principles are greater than themselves, which comes from humility. (There is even sewn a seed in these people by God as His Law is written on their hearts too, but that's another blog.) You'll notice it is not such as these who seek to destroy our Republic on the atheist side, but those who also see fit to attack religion almost all the time, which is unAmerican and against the 1st Amendment. Remember, the country was founded by the religious, not as an secular society, but as one with a strong ethical/moral code that respects religion and recognizes God, which is all a government is supposed to do so it does not become God. Therefore, atheists are to respect religion under the 1st Amendment, not the other way around.

Liberty is high value and reliance on citizenship, which predicates the logic that people protect and defend their own countrymen from criminals and even their own government, render aid to strangers in need, and even though they may argue among themselves, act in unity when presented with a foreign threat or foreign influence (protection of our border). After all, is not defense against foreign subversion the very act of resistance to influence, the preservation of culture? Should not all citizens then have sought to preserve our culture, rather than allowing contempt for it post-1950's?

In conclusion, Liberty rests upon the value of citizenship (especially in the womb), the commitment to citizenship, the defense of citizenship, the brotherhood of community in unity, despite differences. Liberty relies on the full practice of total self-governance. Liberty depends on the knowledge and practice of morality. LIBERTY is therefore determined by morality. Notice that these are the things that the Left has unceasingly attacked for at least 40 years now. They are unAmerican and treasonous as these are the differences which must be excepted from tolerance: Those differences are immorality and anti-Americanism (includes Marxism/communism), which those who argue (or work) against First American Principles as enshrined in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. There is no tolerance for these and still maintain Liberty or a Constitutional Republic.