Sunday, July 5, 2015

unalienable rights

“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

unalienable rights
Who defines unalienable rights?
Is housing a right?
Is healthcare a right?
If freedom a right?
Is government provided food a right? 
Is water flowing to a home a right?
Do our politicians, SCOTUS define rights for political expediency, political correctness? 
How is endowed by their Creator ever defined by those that believe they have no creator?
Today we are faced with many challenges,  yet we cannot define rights without interjecting political correctness.
Imagine this.
The Union army once had the courage and the confidence to march singing “Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!” Those men were facing a national crisis and physical horrors worse than anything our generation has known, or is likely to know. 

That would never be allowed to happen today as we continue our march to political correctness.





  1. "Dixie", also known as "I Wish I Was in Dixie", "Dixie's Land", and other titles, is a popular American song. It is one of the most distinctively American musical products of the 19th century,[1] and probably the best-known song to have come out of blackfaceminstrelsy.[2] Although not a folk song at its creation, "Dixie" has since entered the American folk vernacular. The song likely cemented the word "Dixie" in the American vocabulary as a toponym for the Southern United States.

    Although most sources credit Ohio-bornDaniel Decatur Emmett with the song's composition, other people have claimed to have composed "Dixie", even during Emmett's lifetime. Compounding the problem of definitively establishing the song's authorship are Emmett's own confused accounts of its writing, and his tardiness in registering the song's copyright. The latest challenge has come on behalf of the Snowden Family ofKnox County, Ohio, who may have collaborated with Emmett to write "Dixie".

    The song originated in the blackface minstrel shows of the 1850s and quickly became popular across the United States. Its lyrics, written in a comic, exaggerated version ofAfrican American Vernacular English, tell the story of a homesick southerner. During theAmerican Civil War, "Dixie" was adopted as a de facto anthem of the Confederacy. New versions appeared at this time that more explicitly tied the song to the events of the Civil War. Since the advent of the North American Civil Rights Movement, many have identified the lyrics of the song with the iconography and ideology of the Old South. Today, "Dixie" is sometimes considered offensive, and its critics link the act of singing it to sympathy for slavery or racial separation in the American South. Its supporters, on the other hand, view it as a legitimate aspect of Southern culture and heritage and the campaigns against it as political correctness. The song was a favorite of PresidentAbraham Lincoln; he had it played at some of his political rallies and at the announcement of General Robert E. Lee's surrender

  2. Are free cell phones and contracts an unalienable right?

    Is preschool an unalienable right?

    Are student loans an unalienable right?

    Is Dancing with the Stars an unalienable right?

    Is smoking pot an unalienable right?

    Is poligamy an unalienable right?

    1. Interesting that you mentioned polygamy. Since the Supreme Court marriage decision several law suits have been filed by people who claim they now have the right to enter in polygamous marriage.

    2. An interesting question Mick.

      What's the real definition of marriage? Who says it should only have 2 people involved?

  3. Is housing a right? No. Is healthcare a right? No. If freedom a right? No. Is government provided food a right? No. Is water flowing to a home a right? No.

    To me, none of these things are a right. That said, in most successful societies I can think of, they are present. I believe that as a backlash against what conservatives see as too many free handouts for lazy people, there has been a drive to have a hyper focused discussion on how society will be destroyed if we provide these things. I don't know if my view is truly encased in liberal thought these days, and I tend to think it's not. But I don't believe these things are rights and instead, I look at in terms of what helps individuals flourish in society. I can't debate the point that the constitution does not stipulate a basic existence for all individuals part of the American Society. What I will perpetually debate is the idea that we can have a free society on paper via the constitution, while in reality, we have a gross inequality. As an honest question Lou, suppose we chose to acknowledge that none of those things are rights and truly, literally provided none of those things unless one could personally pay for them. Would we be a better nation for it?

    To your second point, Conservatives are every bit as ridiculous when it comes to political correctness and have little safety to be throwing stones considering where they live. Correctness is backlash and a response to the upholding of outdates ideas. I think liberals go way to far with it and I frequently roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of it. Bringing down the confederate flag from statehouses is a legitimate response; canceling the Dukes of Hazard from re run TV because the confederate flag on the car is ridiculous. Those who are farther left or right of center live lives dominated by a certain correctness. From time to time, both of them have their fifteen minutes and both them way oversell their point.

    1. They are not rights but we do need to provide them for people who are unable to provide for themselves.

      The problem we have is central government cannot make those choices as they are not in the community so they set standards of what they think people should be able to achieve. Fall below the line, presto benefits. Above the line, to bad.

      The problem is when you set a benefit level to high people abuse the benefit.

    2. "The problem is when you set a benefit level to high people abuse the benefit."

      So take away all benefits and we take away all abuse?

    3. louman you decry anything that is given to any individual. Do you include the 37 billion given to the oil and gas industry 21 billion of it for development and exploration? Should the oil companies not be expected to find their own oil without we the people paying to find it and paying again to use it? Is that an unalienable right?

    4. The government does not chose winners and losers well.

      Should we also take away all the subsidies to the green energy sector?
      Subsidies for electric auto development?

      Perhaps remove all subsidies and grants.

      One would have thought your president could at least get the numbers correct.
      NASHUA, N.H. — With his re-election fate increasingly tied to the price Americans are paying at the gas pump, President Obama asked Congress on Thursday to end $4 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies and vowed to tackle the country’s long-term energy issues while shunning “phony election-year promises about lower gas prices.”

    5. "The problem is when you set a benefit level to high people abuse the benefit."

      So take away all benefits and we take away all abuse?

      Should a person be able to collect SNAP benefits forever? I would say in some cases, yes. For the majority, no.

    6. I would agree with you that benefits should not last forever. But where do you draw the line, I think this is you basic, and compeletly fair question. I feel that in recent years, especially the second half of Obama's term, there has been a disproportionate focus on the total number of people who receive public aid. Again, we aren't talking about benefits that go to people who don't need aid, just those who are poor.

      When we rewrote personal bankruptcy laws, we did so almost purely because of an outrage that 30% of those claiming personal bankruptcy were gaming the system. The other two thirds were claiming bankruptcy primarily because of medical illness. So we said everybody must pay because of 30%. This, to me, is the type of reduced gain I want to avoid in slashing benefits that again, are really a small portion of the budget.

      Your point that too much comfort breeds complacency is something I won't argue, which is why I believe you need to make changes from time to time to ensure that no single segment of the populous is allowed to get to comfortable. I'd hardly say the poor receiving SNAP are comfortable.

    7. As I thought lou you are for corporate welfare. How "bout Corporate inversions? Unalienable right or welfare?


  4. The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient. Framers of the Constitution recognized the tendency for human beings in power to abuse that power. They desired to establish a framework for government that takes into account human nature.

    It seems paradoxical, therefore, that the Founding Fathers would create a document strengthening the central government that was intended to limit government. A look at the intent of James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," settles this point. According to historian Pauline Meier in her introduction to The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, "James Madison was more concerned with the wrongful acts of the states than with the weaknesses of the Confederation...Worse yet, many of the new laws passed by triumphant state majorities violated the rights of minorities." Meier adds, "Madison also concluded that the rights of the people would be more reliably protected in a national government than by a state government." (20).

    In other words, state constitutions had proved ineffective in securing the rights of citizens; a national Constitution, therefore, with strict limitations on government, could better protect individual rights.

    Maier, Pauline. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. New York: Bantam, 1998.

    1. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

      The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

      Seems as though the Federal Government in it's quest for more power continues to take power from the states.
      James Madison
      Federalist #456.

    2. States rights states right blah blah blah ad nauseam. the original government of the land the Articles of confederation gave all the rights to the several states and it was a total disaster as a national form of government. And the union would have eventually split had it not been changed. The constitutional convention decided that instead of fixing the Articles that it was in the best interest of the nation to write a constitution giving more power to the federal government. After much debate the necessary and proper clause was inserted not to limit the powers of the federal government and the freely elected Congress but to broaden them. At it's first test McCulloch vs Maryland the supreme court upheld the clause as being constitutional and the flood gates were opened. Necessary did not have to be "absolute" the court decided, and the powers of the federal government were hence expanded. So whatever our government deems necessary for the good of the country and it's people will pretty much always be deemed constitutional.

    3. So why are Democrat controlled sanctuary cities nullifying Federal law? Why didn't San Francisco work with the Feds to deport a seven times felon before he killed our citizen?

      If sanctuary cities ignore Fedal law why don't States nullify the recent supreme court gay marriage edict?


    4. ad nauseam.

      And one day this country will end as states tire of the over reach of the Federal Government.

      Nothing lasts forever including this government and this country.

  5. That's right louman Rome died after 800 years. We wil never see the end.

    1. Many say the Fall of Rome was an ongoing process, lasting more than a century. Since Rome still exists, it is argued that it never fell. Some prefer to say that Rome adapted rather than fell

      Some of the reasons:
      decadence: Got it today.
      monetary trouble: Yep, that's present.
      Military problems: Seems to be present.
      Imperial incompetence , administrative incompetence: Present and accounted for.
      The importation of labor, Romans became lazy: Present and accounted for.
      A split in the empire. Could it be close with the divisiveness in the country today? Look at yourself, you cannot stand conservatives and their conservative principals.
      Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason: Might be here today.

      You hope you do not live to see it.