I hate to break it to you, but your friends, family, and co-workers who may be Socialist in their thinking are more than willing to sacrifice all of your rights--that's right, throw ALL of your liberties under the bus--in order to achieve their goals.
This is Communism-Socialism's dirty little secret.
And this is my topic of discussion today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
In order to get 'government mandated healthcare for all' and government-controlled endeavor previously handled by the private sector, they are more than willing to take your guns, free speech, and everything else.
I encourage you to click on the link above and read. And pass it along. Thanks!
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Obama Receives Spike in Death Threats
Texas Fred reports on a story from the AP that says Barack Obama has received more death threats than any other President-elect in U.S. history.
It should be noted that ALL Presidents-elect receive these threats after a Presidential election. It comes with the territory.
But what is curious is the fact that Obama has received more than anyone else.
Now let me be very clear about this. Only a nutcase would personally threaten a United States President, Barack Obama included. Such a thing is simply over the top, and 99.99% of Americans, including me, would never even think about participating in such a brazen act.
To be sure, the 56 million Americans who voted against Barack Obama have been very emotional, sometimes heated, in our outrage that someone with Obama's political ideology could actually get elected to the White House.
We can expect the heated debate to continue.
But personal threats?
Deranged and unstable persons can often be pushed over the edge by forceful rhetoric. And the widespread fear of Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress may well have pushed the most unstable among us over the edge to the point of doing something stupid.
In the New Testament, for example, Jesus uses vivid and stunning imagery to describe the importance of avoiding placing oneself in a position to be tempted to do wrong. He said, 'If your hand offends you, cut it off. Better for your hand to burn in hell than your entire body. And if your eye offends you, gouge it out, for better to go to heaven blind than for the whole body to burn in hell.'
The imagery is metaphor, that is, not to be taken literally.
But the emotionally disturbed have been known to read those statements of Jesus and proceed to mutilate themselves, as if doing so will keep them from sin.
Those of us who are Jeffersonian libertarians have often stated that we would never fire the first shot against forces of tyranny who seek to rob us of our rights and property. Tyrannical government will always have to make the first move.
But we will not hesitate to defend ourselves against the forces of anti-freedom who wish to rob us of our guns, our property, our freedom to speak our minds, including engaging in heated political debate, our right to worship as we please, print what we please as citizen journalists, and to assemble to discuss our shared values.
These are clear rights given to all human beings by God and enumerated in and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
But as patriots who love our country and who wish to see ALL human beings free, we would never initiate any harm to anyone unless in self-defense and in response to an overt threat to our lives and liberties.
I write this today in order to differentiate us and what we are about from those who are intent on doing harm to others unprovoked. Strict Constitutionalists believe that murder is evil. We are guided by clear-cut principles, moral principles, that allow killing only under certain specified conditions, self-defense being the primary condition.
It should be noted that ALL Presidents-elect receive these threats after a Presidential election. It comes with the territory.
But what is curious is the fact that Obama has received more than anyone else.
Now let me be very clear about this. Only a nutcase would personally threaten a United States President, Barack Obama included. Such a thing is simply over the top, and 99.99% of Americans, including me, would never even think about participating in such a brazen act.
To be sure, the 56 million Americans who voted against Barack Obama have been very emotional, sometimes heated, in our outrage that someone with Obama's political ideology could actually get elected to the White House.
We can expect the heated debate to continue.
But personal threats?
Deranged and unstable persons can often be pushed over the edge by forceful rhetoric. And the widespread fear of Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress may well have pushed the most unstable among us over the edge to the point of doing something stupid.
In the New Testament, for example, Jesus uses vivid and stunning imagery to describe the importance of avoiding placing oneself in a position to be tempted to do wrong. He said, 'If your hand offends you, cut it off. Better for your hand to burn in hell than your entire body. And if your eye offends you, gouge it out, for better to go to heaven blind than for the whole body to burn in hell.'
The imagery is metaphor, that is, not to be taken literally.
But the emotionally disturbed have been known to read those statements of Jesus and proceed to mutilate themselves, as if doing so will keep them from sin.
Those of us who are Jeffersonian libertarians have often stated that we would never fire the first shot against forces of tyranny who seek to rob us of our rights and property. Tyrannical government will always have to make the first move.
But we will not hesitate to defend ourselves against the forces of anti-freedom who wish to rob us of our guns, our property, our freedom to speak our minds, including engaging in heated political debate, our right to worship as we please, print what we please as citizen journalists, and to assemble to discuss our shared values.
These are clear rights given to all human beings by God and enumerated in and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
But as patriots who love our country and who wish to see ALL human beings free, we would never initiate any harm to anyone unless in self-defense and in response to an overt threat to our lives and liberties.
I write this today in order to differentiate us and what we are about from those who are intent on doing harm to others unprovoked. Strict Constitutionalists believe that murder is evil. We are guided by clear-cut principles, moral principles, that allow killing only under certain specified conditions, self-defense being the primary condition.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
CHINA'S PRE-OLYMPICS HUMAN RIGHTS FIASCO
The Communist government of China has made no friends in its run-up to this year's highly publicized Olympic games which are to be held in the country.
In fact, the regime's human rights violations in the days leading up to the Games can be described as nothing less than a public relations fiasco.
First it was the regime's treatment of Tibetan monks. Now it is its treatment of political dissidents.
Reuters New Service is reporting that Chinese police have arrested Du Daobin, a prominent Internet dissident, for violating the terms of his probation.
Du had been arrested and imprisoned for posting online essays in support of fellow dissident Liu Di. Once convicted, Du was placed under house arrest and given a suspended sentence for 'subversion.'
But Du was placed under arrest once again this week after being charged with posting articles on overseas websites and receiving guests without permission.
In fact, an entire group of dissidents has been rounded up by the Chinese Communists prior to the Olympics. Their worst offense appears to be making statements critical of the Chinese government.
Yet most of the Chinese believe that hosting the Olympics will help 'improve their image around the world.'
Not with these human rights violations, it won't.
In fact, the regime's human rights violations in the days leading up to the Games can be described as nothing less than a public relations fiasco.
First it was the regime's treatment of Tibetan monks. Now it is its treatment of political dissidents.
Reuters New Service is reporting that Chinese police have arrested Du Daobin, a prominent Internet dissident, for violating the terms of his probation.
Du had been arrested and imprisoned for posting online essays in support of fellow dissident Liu Di. Once convicted, Du was placed under house arrest and given a suspended sentence for 'subversion.'
But Du was placed under arrest once again this week after being charged with posting articles on overseas websites and receiving guests without permission.
In fact, an entire group of dissidents has been rounded up by the Chinese Communists prior to the Olympics. Their worst offense appears to be making statements critical of the Chinese government.
Yet most of the Chinese believe that hosting the Olympics will help 'improve their image around the world.'
Not with these human rights violations, it won't.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
NRO Weighs in On Its Embattled Reporter
National Review Online, the Internet version of the venerable conservative magazine National Review, has offered its defense of its embattled reporter Mark Steyn.
Steyn has been on trial before a human rights tribunal in British Columbia for 'inciting Islamophobia' resulting from the reprinting of excerpts from Steyn's book in the Canadian magazine Mclean's.
The book catalogues the growth and influence of radical Islam in Europe.
Muslim groups in Canada were offended. And thus, they began a search for a venue that would take seriously their charge of Islamophobia, and they found one in the human rights tribunal in British Columbia.
As you will see for yourself in the report issued by National Review, the government's case against Steyn has been a joke. The entire fiasco would be laughable were it not deadly serious. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are at stake.
Even so, most of the media, including most bloggers, have been totally silent on Steyn's plight and Canada's shame.
The article linked below, written collectively by the editors at National Review, is must-reading for anyone who values basic, fundamental human rights.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NGU4ZDJmNDM1OWVkZmYwMjUzYTJiM2JlYmQ5Y2Q=
Steyn has been on trial before a human rights tribunal in British Columbia for 'inciting Islamophobia' resulting from the reprinting of excerpts from Steyn's book in the Canadian magazine Mclean's.
The book catalogues the growth and influence of radical Islam in Europe.
Muslim groups in Canada were offended. And thus, they began a search for a venue that would take seriously their charge of Islamophobia, and they found one in the human rights tribunal in British Columbia.
As you will see for yourself in the report issued by National Review, the government's case against Steyn has been a joke. The entire fiasco would be laughable were it not deadly serious. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are at stake.
Even so, most of the media, including most bloggers, have been totally silent on Steyn's plight and Canada's shame.
The article linked below, written collectively by the editors at National Review, is must-reading for anyone who values basic, fundamental human rights.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NGU4ZDJmNDM1OWVkZmYwMjUzYTJiM2JlYmQ5Y2Q=
Monday, June 09, 2008
Important Mark Steyn Interview Today
In a blog interview featured in 'Girl on the Right,' a new addition to The Liberty Sphere's preferred links, Mark Steyn will talk about his personal nightmare in the Canadian free speech/free press case.
The interview can be found today on Brass Balls Radio, via Girl on the Right:
http://girlontheright.com/2008/06/06/following-on-in-our-all-mark-steyn-theme/
Girl on the Right provides a daily audio/video feed from Brass Balls Radio.
Mark Steyn, of course, is the National Review columnist/reporter whose article on radical Islam in Europe landed him in a British Columbian human rights tribunal. He is charged with 'Islamophobia' and attempting to incite Islamophobia.
Human rights observers say that the case is representative of Canada's descent into totalitarianism. The case is also a grim reminder that formerly free societies are succumbing to the hysteria of extremists who believe that pointing out the weaknesses and failures of Islam, for example, is apparently a hideous crime against humanity that must be harshly judged and punished.
Free societies, however, allow no such limits on human liberty.
Steyn's own words concerning his own personal ordeal at the hands of the Canadian government should be a stark wake-up call to all around the world who value human freedom.
The interview can be found today on Brass Balls Radio, via Girl on the Right:
http://girlontheright.com/2008/06/06/following-on-in-our-all-mark-steyn-theme/
Girl on the Right provides a daily audio/video feed from Brass Balls Radio.
Mark Steyn, of course, is the National Review columnist/reporter whose article on radical Islam in Europe landed him in a British Columbian human rights tribunal. He is charged with 'Islamophobia' and attempting to incite Islamophobia.
Human rights observers say that the case is representative of Canada's descent into totalitarianism. The case is also a grim reminder that formerly free societies are succumbing to the hysteria of extremists who believe that pointing out the weaknesses and failures of Islam, for example, is apparently a hideous crime against humanity that must be harshly judged and punished.
Free societies, however, allow no such limits on human liberty.
Steyn's own words concerning his own personal ordeal at the hands of the Canadian government should be a stark wake-up call to all around the world who value human freedom.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Criticize China? Better Watch Your Back
It's a good thing CNN's Jack Cafferty isn't in China. In all likelihood he would be placed under arrest and hauled into prison for a lengthy sentence.
Cafferty's crime? He dared refer to the the Chinese government as 'goons' and 'thugs' in response to the regime's treatment of the people of Tibet.
The remarks were spoken from the safety of CNN's headquarters during the network's daily broadcast of 'The Situation Room. Cafferty quipped, 'I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.'
This prompted the Chinese Foreign Ministry to summon CNN's Beijing bureau chief in order to demand an apology.
As usual, the regime's spin on the incident is that Cafferty was referring to 'the Chinese people as a whole' and not merely to the regime. According to the ruling Communist Party officials such words are tantamount to 'verbal terrorism' against the Chinese people and indicates an anti-Chinese bias at CNN.
Officials at CNN, however, refuse an apology. Cafferty himself stated that he was in no way referring to the Chinese people but only to the Chinese government, and that he apologized if anyone thought otherwise.
The entire display, however, is classic Chinese Communist reaction to criticism. Not only does the regime fail to recognize the value of free speech but it is particularly harsh toward speech, either written or spoken, that in any way portrays the government in a negative light.
In other words, if you dare criticize the government, it's off to jail with you.
Most of the Chinese people understand this, including Chinese-Americans. Some, however, view the American ideal of freedom of speech as a totally foreign concept that is to be devalued. It is extremely important for such person to understand that in this country freedom of speech was first envisioned to protect in particular any speech that is critical of government.
This is part of our understanding of basic, inherent human rights and liberties.
Thus, until the Chinese government understands that human liberty is the pinnacle of human progress, most of us in the States will always view the regime as 'the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the past 50 years.'
I will even go further than Mr. Cafferty. China's government is tyrannical. It suppresses the liberties of the Chinese people and holds them in the heavy grip of oppression.
Therefore, it is a rogue regime that is worthy of nothing but the free world's disdain and condemnation.
Cafferty's crime? He dared refer to the the Chinese government as 'goons' and 'thugs' in response to the regime's treatment of the people of Tibet.
The remarks were spoken from the safety of CNN's headquarters during the network's daily broadcast of 'The Situation Room. Cafferty quipped, 'I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years.'
This prompted the Chinese Foreign Ministry to summon CNN's Beijing bureau chief in order to demand an apology.
As usual, the regime's spin on the incident is that Cafferty was referring to 'the Chinese people as a whole' and not merely to the regime. According to the ruling Communist Party officials such words are tantamount to 'verbal terrorism' against the Chinese people and indicates an anti-Chinese bias at CNN.
Officials at CNN, however, refuse an apology. Cafferty himself stated that he was in no way referring to the Chinese people but only to the Chinese government, and that he apologized if anyone thought otherwise.
The entire display, however, is classic Chinese Communist reaction to criticism. Not only does the regime fail to recognize the value of free speech but it is particularly harsh toward speech, either written or spoken, that in any way portrays the government in a negative light.
In other words, if you dare criticize the government, it's off to jail with you.
Most of the Chinese people understand this, including Chinese-Americans. Some, however, view the American ideal of freedom of speech as a totally foreign concept that is to be devalued. It is extremely important for such person to understand that in this country freedom of speech was first envisioned to protect in particular any speech that is critical of government.
This is part of our understanding of basic, inherent human rights and liberties.
Thus, until the Chinese government understands that human liberty is the pinnacle of human progress, most of us in the States will always view the regime as 'the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the past 50 years.'
I will even go further than Mr. Cafferty. China's government is tyrannical. It suppresses the liberties of the Chinese people and holds them in the heavy grip of oppression.
Therefore, it is a rogue regime that is worthy of nothing but the free world's disdain and condemnation.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Chinese Show Their True Colors
The world is truly fortunate that the Chinese are hosting the Olympics. Never since Tienanmen Square have the true colors of the Communist regime been on full display for all to see.
Despite all of the so-called 'progress' made in China with the introduction of capitalism into its system (albeit with clear anti-capitalistic restrictions on speech and other human rights), the nation is still held firmly in the grip of totalitarianism along with all of its concomitant suppression of human rights.
No greater example of this can be found than China's present treatment of Tibet, the Buddhist monks, and its reaction to the nations participating in the Olympics that protest the regime's oppressive actions.
The problem is that the West routinely capitulates to Chinese demands. Google and Microsoft betrayed their country when, on condition of doing business in China, they agreed to the regime's demands that freedom of expression be suppressed.
And the most that the West can seem to muster in response to China's barbaric treatment of Tibet is a verbal slap on the wrist.
As usual, this is not enough.
George the First set the tone for this travesty when he refused to react forcefully to the manner in which the Chinese regime reacted to the brave students who protested Communism in Tienanmen Square nearly 20 years ago.
Our non-action was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
China is still home to thousands if not millions of citizens, many of them the most intellectually astute in the country, who detest the regime and believe that democratic ideals and human liberty are the height of human progress.
We owe it to these stalwart souls to give a clear signal that we are on their side.
Despite all of the so-called 'progress' made in China with the introduction of capitalism into its system (albeit with clear anti-capitalistic restrictions on speech and other human rights), the nation is still held firmly in the grip of totalitarianism along with all of its concomitant suppression of human rights.
No greater example of this can be found than China's present treatment of Tibet, the Buddhist monks, and its reaction to the nations participating in the Olympics that protest the regime's oppressive actions.
The problem is that the West routinely capitulates to Chinese demands. Google and Microsoft betrayed their country when, on condition of doing business in China, they agreed to the regime's demands that freedom of expression be suppressed.
And the most that the West can seem to muster in response to China's barbaric treatment of Tibet is a verbal slap on the wrist.
As usual, this is not enough.
George the First set the tone for this travesty when he refused to react forcefully to the manner in which the Chinese regime reacted to the brave students who protested Communism in Tienanmen Square nearly 20 years ago.
Our non-action was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
China is still home to thousands if not millions of citizens, many of them the most intellectually astute in the country, who detest the regime and believe that democratic ideals and human liberty are the height of human progress.
We owe it to these stalwart souls to give a clear signal that we are on their side.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Just So You Know Where We Stand
I rarely write about religious topics unless they have to do with politics and politicians, or terrorism, which is intrinsically intertwined with religious dogma of a sinister kind.
Yet from time to time writing about religious beliefs is unavoidable, particularly when it comes to understanding the founding of our Republic and the views of the persons who founded it.
True, not all of the Founders where Christian, but most were officially affiliated with a Christian congregation. And they wrote at length about their views, including references to Jesus Christ.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were clearly convinced that human rights are not the invention of men and women, nor are these rights 'granted' by government.
Rather, they saw liberty as God-given. And all human beings are endowed with these liberties by their Creator, no matter what governments say. Governments may recognize and protect these God-given rights, or they may detest them and refuse to recognize them, much to the peril of the citizens.
Thus, the U.S. Government does not and cannot 'grant' the right to bear firearms, the right to speak freely without government restriction, and the like. These are pre-existing rights granted to human beings by God. The only thing the U.S. Government can do is recognize and protect these God-given rights, IF it chooses to do so.
The Founders believed that our form of government is unique in that it has chosen to recognize and protect these God-given rights.
But each succeeding generation is charged with the responsibility to make sure that the vision of the Founders is preserved and protected from tyrants and despots, wolves in sheep's clothing, who incessantly attempt to rob the citizens of these rights.
As a Christian, therefore, I believe that my rights are given by Christ Himself. As the Bible states, 'If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.' And, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to fight to protect these rights from those within our own country who apparently have no more regard for the Constitution than they do for Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Further, I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to fight for the rights of non-Christians every bit as fervently as I do for that of Christians. All of those who believe in human liberty that is unfettered and unrestricted by oppressive government has been enlightened to that truth whether they are Christian or not.
This means that Jews, Buddhists, moderate Muslims, and those with no religious beliefs are part of the same team if they believe that basic human rights are inherent and not 'created,' 'given,' or 'granted' by government. Rights stand totally apart from and outside government.
Thus, on this Easter Sunday, I can celebrate the fact that Christ lives and has made it possible for the entire human race to be truly free.
It is to that end that The Liberty Sphere is dedicated...just so you know where we stand.
Happy Easter!
Yet from time to time writing about religious beliefs is unavoidable, particularly when it comes to understanding the founding of our Republic and the views of the persons who founded it.
True, not all of the Founders where Christian, but most were officially affiliated with a Christian congregation. And they wrote at length about their views, including references to Jesus Christ.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were clearly convinced that human rights are not the invention of men and women, nor are these rights 'granted' by government.
Rather, they saw liberty as God-given. And all human beings are endowed with these liberties by their Creator, no matter what governments say. Governments may recognize and protect these God-given rights, or they may detest them and refuse to recognize them, much to the peril of the citizens.
Thus, the U.S. Government does not and cannot 'grant' the right to bear firearms, the right to speak freely without government restriction, and the like. These are pre-existing rights granted to human beings by God. The only thing the U.S. Government can do is recognize and protect these God-given rights, IF it chooses to do so.
The Founders believed that our form of government is unique in that it has chosen to recognize and protect these God-given rights.
But each succeeding generation is charged with the responsibility to make sure that the vision of the Founders is preserved and protected from tyrants and despots, wolves in sheep's clothing, who incessantly attempt to rob the citizens of these rights.
As a Christian, therefore, I believe that my rights are given by Christ Himself. As the Bible states, 'If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.' And, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to fight to protect these rights from those within our own country who apparently have no more regard for the Constitution than they do for Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Further, I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to fight for the rights of non-Christians every bit as fervently as I do for that of Christians. All of those who believe in human liberty that is unfettered and unrestricted by oppressive government has been enlightened to that truth whether they are Christian or not.
This means that Jews, Buddhists, moderate Muslims, and those with no religious beliefs are part of the same team if they believe that basic human rights are inherent and not 'created,' 'given,' or 'granted' by government. Rights stand totally apart from and outside government.
Thus, on this Easter Sunday, I can celebrate the fact that Christ lives and has made it possible for the entire human race to be truly free.
It is to that end that The Liberty Sphere is dedicated...just so you know where we stand.
Happy Easter!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Misconceptions on What Constitutes a 'Right'
In my last column on The Liberty Sphere I wrote about the principle of expansion of rights inherent in the 'originalist' or 'strict constructionism' method of Constitutional interpretation.
This brings us to the question of what, exactly, constitutes a 'right' as designated in the U.S. Constitution.
The question is of extreme importance, for it is clear that in modern society there are common misconceptions as to what constitutes a right.
Ask some of the neighbors in a 'planned community' what constitutes a right, and some may well tell you that they have the right to limit how many trees you can plant on your own property. In some inner-city communities, some may well state that they have the right to tell their neighbors they cannot possess a firearm due to the fact that they must feel 'safe.' Still others may state that they have a right to healthcare through the federal government, funded by taxpayers.
Each of these is an example of a gross misconception as to what constitutes a right.
Yet there is no small number of American politicians, who should know better, who are known to say the very same things. John Edwards, for example, when asked what he thought were the most important basic human rights, failed to mention a single issue delineated in The Bill of Rights but instead insisted that every single human being has a right to healthcare, to Internet access, and to American citizenship, among other such ridiculous and dangerous notions.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have said similar things. So have Senators Obama, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry.
So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?
A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.
You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'
You do not have the right to tell me that I cannot own a handgun simply because it may give you the willies to think of your neighbors being armed. For you to be able to do such a thing deprives ME of my liberty.
You do not have an automatic right to healthcare or healthcare insurance. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare in any emergency room in the nation, and through various and sundry other services provided to those who lack insurance or the means to pay for their care.
But to claim you have a 'right' to healthcare means that you are depriving someone else of their liberty. They must pay your bill if you cannot afford it. Taxes must be raised on the masses to cover the fact that the care you receive will not be paid for by you.
A society or nation may well decide through its elected officials or through a public vote that it wishes to pay for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured. But this is NOT a basic human right. To take something from someone else in order that you might have something you would not normally have does not constitute a 'right.'
When the electorate, politicians, and governments decide that taxpayer-funded freebies constitute rights, they are immediately engaging in double-speak. It is practically and rationally impossible to secure a right by infringing on the rights of others. The one automatically negates the other.
Thus, for the nation to implement socialized medicine that puts everyone on a waiting list that may well mean death to those who are very ill, is not securing a 'right' but imposing tyranny. Such a plan will cost you and me plenty in terms of money, swift and timely care, and the right to make medical decisions solely between patients and their doctors.
It is vital, therefore, that we not allow liberal politicians to scam us into believing these things are inherent 'rights.' A right doesn't cost anyone anything. The only cost incurred is to the individual who must take responsibility for the exercising of those rights and the willingness to pay the price to keep them.
This brings us to the question of what, exactly, constitutes a 'right' as designated in the U.S. Constitution.
The question is of extreme importance, for it is clear that in modern society there are common misconceptions as to what constitutes a right.
Ask some of the neighbors in a 'planned community' what constitutes a right, and some may well tell you that they have the right to limit how many trees you can plant on your own property. In some inner-city communities, some may well state that they have the right to tell their neighbors they cannot possess a firearm due to the fact that they must feel 'safe.' Still others may state that they have a right to healthcare through the federal government, funded by taxpayers.
Each of these is an example of a gross misconception as to what constitutes a right.
Yet there is no small number of American politicians, who should know better, who are known to say the very same things. John Edwards, for example, when asked what he thought were the most important basic human rights, failed to mention a single issue delineated in The Bill of Rights but instead insisted that every single human being has a right to healthcare, to Internet access, and to American citizenship, among other such ridiculous and dangerous notions.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have said similar things. So have Senators Obama, Dodd, Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry.
So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?
A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.
You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'
You do not have the right to tell me that I cannot own a handgun simply because it may give you the willies to think of your neighbors being armed. For you to be able to do such a thing deprives ME of my liberty.
You do not have an automatic right to healthcare or healthcare insurance. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare in any emergency room in the nation, and through various and sundry other services provided to those who lack insurance or the means to pay for their care.
But to claim you have a 'right' to healthcare means that you are depriving someone else of their liberty. They must pay your bill if you cannot afford it. Taxes must be raised on the masses to cover the fact that the care you receive will not be paid for by you.
A society or nation may well decide through its elected officials or through a public vote that it wishes to pay for the healthcare of the poor and uninsured. But this is NOT a basic human right. To take something from someone else in order that you might have something you would not normally have does not constitute a 'right.'
When the electorate, politicians, and governments decide that taxpayer-funded freebies constitute rights, they are immediately engaging in double-speak. It is practically and rationally impossible to secure a right by infringing on the rights of others. The one automatically negates the other.
Thus, for the nation to implement socialized medicine that puts everyone on a waiting list that may well mean death to those who are very ill, is not securing a 'right' but imposing tyranny. Such a plan will cost you and me plenty in terms of money, swift and timely care, and the right to make medical decisions solely between patients and their doctors.
It is vital, therefore, that we not allow liberal politicians to scam us into believing these things are inherent 'rights.' A right doesn't cost anyone anything. The only cost incurred is to the individual who must take responsibility for the exercising of those rights and the willingness to pay the price to keep them.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The Real John Edwards--A Dangerous Subversive (Video)
Washington, DC (TLS). The following excerpts from a John Edwards interview, video included, will shock you. Were Edwards not a very intelligent person, highly educated as an attorney--and a successful one at that--we would be tempted to say that the candidate is simply hopelessly misinformed.
But Edwards is no dummy. He knows the Constitution and its provisions. Yet he simply refuses to accept those provisions.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards actually stated on camera and on the record that basic human rights (inalienable is the term the Founders used) do NOT include the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, or any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Wanna know what Edwards considers a basic human right? There are only five.
1) American Citizenship
2) A College education
3) Healthcare
4) “Living” wages
5) Internet access.
It is very interesting (and highly disgusting) that Edwards never mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the right to bear firearms, etc., etc....you know, like what we find in that totally irrelevant and unimportant document called THE CONSTITUTION?
I believe that each of the Democratic candidates should be asked the same questions that this interviewer asked John Edwards. I would be willing to bet we would get similar answers.
One Democrat who wrote in to the Huffington Post concerning the Republican debate described Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution as 'quaint.'
Excuse me? QUAINT?
Let me tell you something, you IDIOT, were it not for that Constitution you would not be able to write your B.S. in freedom on the Internet or anywhere else!
It is time for America to WAKE UP!! Democrats and the people who support them are subversives who have ZERO respect or regard for the U.S. Constitution.
It is more important to them for everybody to have Internet access.
Edwards and his ilk need to take a flying leap from the highest bridge they can find.
Read more about this disgusting interview, including the video of it, here (but keep your up-chuck pan handy):
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=6915
But Edwards is no dummy. He knows the Constitution and its provisions. Yet he simply refuses to accept those provisions.
Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards actually stated on camera and on the record that basic human rights (inalienable is the term the Founders used) do NOT include the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, or any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.
Wanna know what Edwards considers a basic human right? There are only five.
1) American Citizenship
2) A College education
3) Healthcare
4) “Living” wages
5) Internet access.
It is very interesting (and highly disgusting) that Edwards never mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the right to bear firearms, etc., etc....you know, like what we find in that totally irrelevant and unimportant document called THE CONSTITUTION?
I believe that each of the Democratic candidates should be asked the same questions that this interviewer asked John Edwards. I would be willing to bet we would get similar answers.
One Democrat who wrote in to the Huffington Post concerning the Republican debate described Ron Paul's defense of the Constitution as 'quaint.'
Excuse me? QUAINT?
Let me tell you something, you IDIOT, were it not for that Constitution you would not be able to write your B.S. in freedom on the Internet or anywhere else!
It is time for America to WAKE UP!! Democrats and the people who support them are subversives who have ZERO respect or regard for the U.S. Constitution.
It is more important to them for everybody to have Internet access.
Edwards and his ilk need to take a flying leap from the highest bridge they can find.
Read more about this disgusting interview, including the video of it, here (but keep your up-chuck pan handy):
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=6915
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
'Human Rights' Talk the Biggest Threat to Liberty
Washington, DC (TLS). The West is under siege. And the danger is every bit as real and lethal as the threat from Islamic terrorists. This threat, however, comes from within.
The talk of 'human rights' has become a catch-phrase for those groups that are committed to limiting human liberty.
No greater example can be found of this phenomenon than the Muslim Imams who were forced from a U.S. Air jet after other passengers alerted officials concerning their strange and unusual behavior--behavior that would normally land American citizens in jail.
But not these race-and-religion-baiters.
In the name of 'human rights' they would seek to take away the 'human rights' of the passengers and of U.S. Air to remove them from that flight and to treat them as a potential terrorist threat. Further, they want the names of the passengers so they can be sued. This is meant to send a message.
Muslim extremists wish to sue Americans into silence.
Thus, in order to protect the so-called 'human rights' of extremists, the rest of us must keep our freakin' mouths shut.
What about OUR human rights?
Melanie Philips writes an eye-opening column on this very issue as it has played out across the Atlantic in the U.K. Read it. It is entitled, 'Liberty Fades as Rights Talk Grows.' Click here to read it:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=495
The talk of 'human rights' has become a catch-phrase for those groups that are committed to limiting human liberty.
No greater example can be found of this phenomenon than the Muslim Imams who were forced from a U.S. Air jet after other passengers alerted officials concerning their strange and unusual behavior--behavior that would normally land American citizens in jail.
But not these race-and-religion-baiters.
In the name of 'human rights' they would seek to take away the 'human rights' of the passengers and of U.S. Air to remove them from that flight and to treat them as a potential terrorist threat. Further, they want the names of the passengers so they can be sued. This is meant to send a message.
Muslim extremists wish to sue Americans into silence.
Thus, in order to protect the so-called 'human rights' of extremists, the rest of us must keep our freakin' mouths shut.
What about OUR human rights?
Melanie Philips writes an eye-opening column on this very issue as it has played out across the Atlantic in the U.K. Read it. It is entitled, 'Liberty Fades as Rights Talk Grows.' Click here to read it:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=495
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)