Tag Archive: rights


The wonderful Declaration of Independence is still in effect today. It has not passed away, no matter that it is over two centuries old. The fundamentals are still strong and solid, even though they are ignored on a regular basis by our leaders. But, that’s another post altogether.

The Declaration of Independence (DoI) is the “why” of America. It defines us, as a nation. Nothing that comes after can contradict it. If the country were a corporation, this would be the mission statement. The Constitution is the “how.” For a corporation, that would be the by-laws. As with a corporation, the by-laws cannot contradict the mission statement. Thus, the Constitution could not contradict the Declaration…and neither may any lower laws.

Has this always been followed to a “T”? Nope. But, it has been followed much more closely than it is today. In fact, starting with Woodrow Wilson (can’t STAND that guy!!), the elites and leaders of the country encouraged people to not even read the entire first part of the DoI, you know, the part that defines where rights come from? Yeah, that part.

Anyway, in the DoI asserts that “all men are created equal…”

So, what did the author and signers of this document mean by “equal”? Did they mean everyone should have the same amount of stuff? Did they mean that everyone has the same attributes, must be seen as equally talented or beautiful, or that they should all have the same likes or dislikes? Let’s read just a bit more.

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” AHA! A clue! These are rights they are talking about, not stuff. Well, what kind of rights do they discuss? Oh, the suspense!!

“that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Egad, they don’t even mention jobs and houses, do they? Huh. Well, how can everyone be EQUAL if they don’t have the same things, look the same, believe all the same things, live the same way, etc.?

They are equal in the application of laws and freedom to exercise rights. No matter if you are famous, poor, rich, a politician, a lawyer…anyone and everyone…has the right to live. Unless a person has committed a crime, and been found guilty through due process in a court of justice, and that is bad enough to warrant the death penalty, no one can legally kill you. Period. THAT is equality.

No matter how in debt you are, how poor you are, or who rich you are; no matter the color of your skin; and no matter what your religion is, no one can keep you captive, unless you have committed a crime worthy of imprisonment, and only then can it be done by the governing body, never an individual. THAT is equality.

If you have enough money to buy a thing, that is your thing. You have the right to own it, and no one can take it from you, legally. Used to be that the lowest classes had no right to private property ownership. In this country, they made sure to lay into the very foundations of the nation the natural rights that we have been given by our Creator, and in this way, safeguard them from other humans thinking they can just take what is yours.

If you are born poor in this country, and you work hard (and work smart), you can become as rich and influential as you please. Before this country was founded, only those born to money had any hope of ever having a life of leisure. Only those born into certain families had a chance of being able to study what they pleased, unless they had the outstanding fortune of being taken in by a noblewoman who wished to help a poor soul. If every noblewoman did this, that would have been admirable, but there were so many more of the “common folk” that there was no hope for just about everyone else.

THIS is what our DoI is making clear: we are all equal in our Creator’s sight, we have all been given equal rights. There is no hyphen. The Creator did not give women’s rights, minority rights, or any other broken label. He gave EQUAL rights, and the color of your skin, your gender, your bank account balance, and your ethnicity is of no consequences. That’s why the statue of Justice is blindfolded: justice is to be blind, and therefore applied equally.

To do otherwise is to reject the concept of equal rights, and instead institute preferred or lesser classes in a country that was created to do away with classes altogether.

Know where you stand.

And, buy a copy of my book (link to the right, top of the page) and understand the entire DoI…with cartoons…how cool is that?

First things first. We must read the text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Simple enough:

Text of the 2nd amendment

 

There has been some confusion about who can infringe on rights and under what circumstances.

 

For example, in the First Amendment, we find that only CONGRESS is prohibited from restricting free speech. That is pretty specific. The decisions on which speech must be restricted are left to the states (see Amendment #10 in the Bill of Rights for clarification). Before you get your panties in a bunch about “free speech,” you must understand what the founders meant by the Congress being restricted, but not the states.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you understand that there are laws against slander and libel? I’m sure you do. You can’t just go around slandering a person’s good name!

 

Who decides what constitutes slander and libel? The state governments do, that’s who. They RESTRICT speech, when the speech consists of lies with intent to harm another with those lies.

 

On the other hand, do you see anyone, specifically, listed that is restricted from infringing on arms ownership? Nope. It just reads, “shall not be infringed.” This means NO ONE is allowed to infringe on the law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms…not states, not the federal government, not individuals. Law abiding citizens have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period.

 

IF someone uses a gun to commit any crime, then, through due process of law, that right can be removed. That’s how it goes with ANY right! You have the God-given right to liberty, unless, through due process of law, you are sent to jail. Easy peasy and straightforward. You are free unless you commit a crime…then you give up your right to walk around unimpeded. Check.

 

This business of prohibiting gun ownership before ANY crime has been committed goes directly against this principle. For instance, do we have to get permits to speak? Or do we speak, and then pay the consequences if we commit slander? Do we get permits to move about freely in these United States? Or do we get extradited if we commit a crime in one state and have a warrant out for our arrest but are currently in another state? Do we have to get a license to peacefully assemble, aside from permits for using land? Or do we just pay the consequences if we get rowdy and destructive?

 

But, somehow, we’ve even gotten to the point that it’s logical to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens (even make them take classes and fill out paperwork) instead of just doing a background check (to make sure they are not convicted felons) before carrying concealed. The proposed legislation for outlawing certain types of arms are flowing like the booze at most family gatherings…and will end up causing more of a train wreck.

 

Really? This is what we’re doing as a nation?

 

The plan is to take a FUNDAMENTAL right that was outlined specifically by the founders – the right of self-defense against ANY enemy, to include a tyrannical government – that was given to us by our Creator and flush it down the toilet. Bravo.

 

I won’t even get into the statistics of gun control  leading to more violent crime. I won’t go into how the mass shootings happen in areas with tight gun control already. I won’t go into how the only law that has made ANY positive difference in the amount of violent crime is making concealed carry legal. I won’t go into any of that. It’s about our RIGHTS! Our real, God-given rights.

 

So, are you going to buy into the idiotic rhetoric the gun control advocates are spewing? Or are you going to get informed (start with buying my book by clicking on the picture of it to the right) and arm yourself with the truth (and maybe a .45)? C’mon! We have a country to save!

This series (see, it’s happening!) will be about how a bill becomes law, but first things first.

 

I need to make it clear that our founders and framers were interested in freedom for every individual, and the best way to do that is to limit the scope of the federal government.

 

At some point I will write a blog about the whole slavery thing (see I can read you mind!), but for now, just know that slavery was not invented by the founders (it was invented about 3 years after people were invented) and even the majority of them who held slaves would have ended the practice at the time of the signing of the Declaration, if they could have. Being that they could not and also live, Jefferson set the bar HIGH for individual freedom and set the stage for freedom for all. If our CREATOR gives rights, then how can anyone keep a slave? All you have to do is read Lincoln’s arguments later against people trying to pervert bible doctrine to say that God is for slavery. He slayed them, it was great! Anyway…

I won’t get into how the laws were at the time, how if you left a slave go, you have to buy property for them, and after many people freed their slaves upon death and bequeathed their estates to the newly freed slaves, the states changed the laws so they couldn’t do that…effectively keeping all current slaves as slaves. But, once again, I digress…

 

OKAY, bills. Yes, it seems that someone just writes a bill, the two houses vote on it, and the president signs it. VOILA! A law is born!

 

Not so fast. There are about 8,000 (slight hyperbole) hurdles that a bill has to jump to even get to that stage and we’ll get to them.

 

Right now, you have to know that our framers, in the interest of keeping the federal government within the constraints of the scope allowed it in the Constitution, made the system of government to be glacially slow…almost to the point of not getting anything done, except really, really important things like national security.

 

How does that ensure freedom? Well, when the government DOES SOMETHING and FAST, it turns out poorly. Did TARP work out? How about the stimulus? And, the Patriot Act? How about that Federal Reserve? Yeah, all not working out so well. When the government acts fast, it will invariably exceed its Constitutional authority. Count on it. The end result is usually a stunted economy and more regulations that kill jobs, plus a loss of freedoms outside the economic kind.

 

So, next time, we’ll discuss the first stages of a newly conceived idea that will become a bill. I’m not going to get all super technical. I’m going to give you the elevator version so you can stay awake. I’ll link to the long, boring, but technically spot on place to get the nitty gritty, if you are so inclined.

…then we have to revise some history in this country. We can’t go off the truth…but, we’ll get to that.

I had a discussion, of sorts, with some people recently who stated the “pro-choice” stance, as they understood it. They called it a right, that the baby doesn’t have its right to life until it’s born, and that most of it rested on the fact that the location of the “fetal tissue” (known as an unborn human) was in a place that could not be transferred to another for the responsibility of gestation (as in, you can’t give your womb to the State to finish building the person to then hand off to another).

When I pointed out that we get our rights from our “Creator,” as outlined in The Declaration of Independence, that’s when they decided that the rights begin at birth.  However, let’s look at what Blackstone had to say about it. He was the legal expert that the founders and framers cut their proverbial teeth on, in the legal profession. He was the “go to guy” for Common Law and the ancient Israelite civilization (on which our founding documents are based). It was he that Madison, the main author of the Constitution, referenced as he wrote.

Ok, drum-roll, please!
The attorney for the State of Texas [during the arguments for Roe V. Wade] responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.” [445] In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that

is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.[446]

This reference is from: http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

Huh. Well, that sounds suspiciously like the Supreme Law of the Land is to protect life of every individual. AND, that the right to life starts at conception.

So, the lower laws, that have found it to be legal to execute innocent people by dismemberment, burning to death via saline in the womb, or having their heads split open and brains sucked out are wrong.

The location of the person is irrelevant. They can have their own personal indoor pools that consist of amniotic fluid…and still have the right to live.

The court, in case you weren’t paying attention, decided that the words of the fourteenth amendment: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” meant that the woman had the right to privacy, which meant that she could abort AT ANY TIME until the time of birth. The fact that there is no right to privacy in that entire amendment, nor any mention of the right to life of the unborn human, was, apparently, irrelevant.

Yeah, that “logic” escapes me, too.

Here’s the thing about rights: in THIS country, they are given to We The People by our Creator. God has given each individual citizen of this country these rights. AMONG them (meaning there are more than just these) are the right to life, liberty, property, and the PURSUIT of happiness (read: not guaranteed success, here). There is a common misconception that the government gives us our rights. This is a problem because then we get lawmakers (like Sen. Dodd, for instance) saying things like, “So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American…”

Ooooo, sorry, no. And, in accordance with our Declaration of Independence, he has just declared himself to be our Creator since only that Being can afford us rights. AAAwkwaaard.

Not every country does the “rights” thing like we do. In Russia, they claim that the people have rights (doesn’t say from whom) and that the government is to protect those rights. But, if the people run the government, then the government can give and take away rights, according to their very own words. Not so in America. We have rights, they are given to us by our Creator, and the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Period. They cannot give rights and, more importantly, they cannot take them away.

That’s why the founding documents are written in the negative. It tells what the government CAN’T do to you…the rest is up to you. If you want to be a no-good, lazy, meaner-than-all-get-out kind of person, fine. If you want to be a nice, kind, loving, good-natured, helpful sort, that’s fine, too. You just can’t take away anyone else’s right to be who they have the right to be. For instance, your choice to rob me must stop where my right to private property begins. My right to my stuff trumps your desire to take it because you would be denying me my right and that’s what the government is there to protect. Side note: that’s one of the many, many reasons for the Second Amendment to the Constitution, as well. The government, because it is not your mommy, won’t be right there to hold your hand, tuck you into bed, and it won’t always be on hand to fulfill its duty to protect your rights, so you can use some of your rights to protect your other rights (life, property, etc.).

One truly easy way to decide if the government is pulling a fast one and calling something a right that is not is this: ask yourself if it costs anything. For instance, me being alive costs the government nothing. In fact, I pay them taxes, so the fact that I live could give them money. But that’s beside the point. If I own property, does that cost anyone else and/or the government anything? Nope. If I have health care, does it cost money? YES! Red Alert, Red Alert! This cannot be a right because our Creator didn’t give us the right to health care. This is a service, a privilege, whatever you want to call it…but you CANNOT call it a right. You want to change that? You’ll have to amend the Constitution.

Another way to decide is: can it be guaranteed no matter what the economic state of the country is? I own a weed whacker…bought and paid for. Does it matter what the unemployment rate is? Nope. The government cannot take my weed whacker away…it’s mine. If I am walking around, just living and not committing crimes, can the government kill me or jail me just because the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt? No, again! However, can the government, if I am on the government health care plan (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), ration my care because there is no tax revenue because the economic times stink? Yep. Red flag all over again.

FDR wanted a second bill of rights that promised people the freedom from want and freedom from fear. There is a reason that our founders did not write one of these. This changes the scenario of our Creator giving rights, to the government giving rights. If the government is in charge of giving rights, the logical reasoning that follows is that it can also take them away.

%d bloggers like this: