Things that are not unalienable rights

We here a lot of talk about unalienable rights, those rights that cannot be taken away.  Yet we also here folks talking about other rights that are not unalienable and they refer to them as though they were.  I'll provide you some examples of things that are not unalienable rights:

1.  A good job
2.  A good IQ
3.  Good health
4.  Good vision
5.  Retirement
6.  Good genes
7.  A good wife or husband
8.  A good marriage
9.  Handicap access
10.  Social security
11.  Green grass
12.  To fit in
13.  Virtues

These are not rights, although they are incentives to work hard and obtain a better life; although they are things that legislatures can give you and take away.

Unalienable rights are those rights you are born with, such as the right to air, food, shelter, choice, defend yourself, etc.

The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy

The founders of the U.S. wanted to form a republic rather than a democracy because they knew that democracies can lead to chaos, and they didn't want the new nation to be chaotic.  The founders knew that democracies never work.

The book, The 5000 year leap:  Principles of Freedom 101," reminds of of this, and notes the following:

"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy.   Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government.  This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken.   The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."

The authors note that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

So a democracy demands the participation of all the people, yet a republic, according to James Madison, "derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.

"It is essential," Madison continued, "to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire  to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."

Yet around the 1900s socialists (including progressives in the U.S.) took the term republic hostage and started referring to their socialisic programs as democracies in order to make them sound more appealing in the United States.

For instance, socialism and progressivism and liberalism fell out of favor due to what was happening in Europe, so any one who wanted to implement socialism in the U.S. had to find a friendly way to implement their policies.  So they Democracies.

For example, in 1921 socialists in the United States started calling themselves, "The League for Industrial Democracy."  It has a much more appealing taste to Americans, and is much more likely to suck people in.  It worked for a while.  You really can't fool Americans for too long.

Yet the consequence of this is that history teachers in schools and journalists started using the word democracy to refer to the United States instead of Republic, and hence the modern confusion. During WWII Woodrow Wilson added to the confusion when he hailed, "Make the world safe for Democracy."  Of course now we know Wilson himself was a socialist under the guise of progressive agent.

The attack on the word republican was actually a planned attack, as we now know that the only way for progressives to get their socialistic agenda passed is by ignoring the Constitution.  If they could destabilize it's meaning, they could make it easier to convince people to ignore it or to change it.

I was taught wrong also, that is until a few years ago one of my friends -- a liberal ironically -- set me straight on this.

14th amendment

Another misinterpreted amendment is the 14th. Somehow this got twisted so that people think it gives anyone born in the U.S. citizenship.

Consider the amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized... within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This amendment was written to make sure black people born or naturalized in the U.S. have the same Constitutional rights as any other citizen.

It has since been misinterpreted -- its meaning changed -- by the left to mean that any child born in the U.S. is a citizen. They purposely ignore the wording -- & subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Progressives do not interpret the written documents, they manipulate.

Constitution sets limits on powers of government

The U.S. Constitution only grants the Federal government to make laws in 7 areas that supersede State Rights:

1. National Defense
2. Immigration
3. Issuing currency
4. Raising revenue to operate national government
5. Foreign relations
6. Resolving conflicts between states
7. Few others

The 10th amendment is worded to reserve all other decisions to the states or to the people:

"The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the state, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Any laws that are not regarding the above mentioned are unconstitutional and subject to such a finding by any court, especially the U.S. Supreme Court.

Do you respect the Constitution? Kagan doesn't!

There's an old saying that if your wife says she loves you, and you have to think about whether you love her, then you probably don't love her. I think the same holds true regarding the constitution. If someone asks you, "Do you think this or that is Constitutional," and you have to think about it, chances are you don't respect the Constitution if you are wise to it, or you are completely ignorant about the Constitution.

Recently Republican Senator Tom Coburn proposed this question to Supreme Court Nominee Elenor Kagan: " If I wanted to sponsor a bill, and it said, "Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day," and I got it through Congress, and it's now the law of the land, does that violate the commerce clause?"

She said, "But I think that the question of whether it's a dumb law is different from whether -- the question of whether it's Constitutional. And I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they're senseless."

Well, no it would not be wrong if the law was, say, unconstitutional. And, according to the 10th amendment, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.

You know, I find it funny that Kagan can't say outright that she thinks a court can't strike a law down just because it thinks the law is stupid, when Kagan herself believes that abortion laws had to be struck down because they were stupid. She believes a woman has a right to protect her reproductive rights, yet she doesn't think a person has a right to protect her digestive rights.

New York has already proposed laws that would make it illegal to eat trans fat or salt. Others have talked about banning people from eating fatty foods or fried foods such as french fries and Kentucky FRIED chicken.

This is another attempt by the left, the progressives, who have been insidious since the days of that monster of a president Woodrow Wilson (who by the way was the 1st president to speak bad of the Constitution) to change the Constitution, or ignore it, in order to get their ideologies passed through Congress.

It has been a slow moving process for them to turn America from a capitalist country into a communist one. And they have made slow progress without ever admitting they are progressives and liberals (or simple socialists) because neither of those words are popular, as conservative and traditionalist are.

And every liberal and progressive presidential candidate (from FDR to McCain) has run pretending to be a conservative. So you know it's not popular what they are doing. And they don't care, because whenever they gain control of the Washington, they pass laws the people don't want, like Amnesty and cap and trade and healthcare reform.

You can go back to FDR and note his Recovery Act that set prices and created the ideal socialistic program, yet thankfully that program was swiped down by the supreme court, although by the time that happened it was too late, and the depression was prolonged because of it.

And while you know it's not Constitutional to do certain things, and it's not Constitutional to filibuster a presidential nominee, yet it was okay when democrats filibustered hundreds of G.W.Bush's court nominees.

And, if it's Constitutional for the dems to filibuster court nominees, this new one is so out of whack with America, has such a misunderstanding about our own Constitution (of which she has no respect for by the way), that I think if this nominee is not stopped in her tracks by the rightful democratic process, this would be a good place for republicans to filibuster.

They have to do it. Kagan is evil. Kagan is not evil by communist and marxist and progressive standards (those are all the same things by the way), but she is evil if you are a constitutionalist, traditionalist and conservative or even liberalitarian or simple traditionalist American or classical liberal. It is if you love your freedom and want to keep it.

Salt anyone? Sorry, it's against the law.

Constitution was meant to make things fair for all, Unfairness Doctrine a perfect example of complete and total unfairness for all

One of the reasons our founding fathers produced the Constitution was so that every person in the majority or minority would be treated with equal respect. It's when people sway from the Constitution for their own personal gains is when the most people cry out with the deepest of "IT'S NOT FAIR."

I think abortion was a perfect example of this. I completely understand liberals when they say that every woman should have a right to an abortion. I don't think abortions should be done, but I respect that opinion.

However, when liberals say that an abortion should be legal just because "it's the right thing," is no reason to simply make it legal. The same is true for the pro-life crowd. We cannot simply make laws based on the idea of "It's fair," because what's fair to one is not fair to another

And it is this idea that separates the U.S. from other democracies around the world. In Europe ideas can be made law that half the country might totally disagree with. Socialized Health care might make no sense to a majority in a particular country, but when it's leaders decide every person "HAS A RIGHT" to medical care and make a law as such, it's NOT FAIR to the rest who think such an idea is bad.

So, in the United States we have many people who want to have their way. And the only way they should ever completely get their way is by abiding by the principles set forth by the Constitution. If it is not mentioned in the Constitution, it should therefore be left to the states (per the 10th amendment).

If it is not mentioned in the State Constitution, it should be left to the people. This policy, set forth in the Constitution by the founders, was set to create equal FAIRNESS for all Americans.

So when I read about liberals in an attempt to re-create things like the fairness doctrine, I cringe. And democrats say that conservative talk radio is being "ridiculous' in creating the fear that liberals want to SILENCE talk radio in any way.

However, when we turn on the Internet and read of liberals like Debbie Stabenow talking about how she is interested in making a law to make talk radio MORE FAIR, we see that these conservative fears are NOT unfounded -- they are scary and UNFAIR. It is the liberals attempt to silence their competition that is UNFAIR, and unconstitutional.

If you don't believe me, check out this conversation between Stabenow and Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

LOOK PEOPLE, THIS WAS A UNITED STATES SENATOR SAYING THIS. WE SHOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH WHETHER YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL.

Sure Obama has said he's not interested in doing this, but the fear is that you have a liberal House, a liberal Senate, and a liberal President, all of whom hate that Conservatives have a dominant voice on talk radio.

If a Fairness doctrine is returned, or something similar to it, it will be no different than the Alien Sedition Acts of John Q. Adams to silence his competition. It will be a slippery slope.

Imagine if talk radio is suppressed by the government, and 50 years down the road conservatives have control of Washington, and they decide to shut the liberal media up. After all, it is unfair that all those newspapers and TV stations are liberal.

Well, IF WE FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION ALL THE TIME INSTEAD OF JUST WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO OUR CAUSE, FAIRNESS WILL BE EQUAL FOR ALL AND ALL TIMES. WE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE HAPPY, BUT AT LEAST THINGS WILL BE FAIR.

That, my friends, is my Constitutional Rant for the month.

Roland Burris is the legal Senator from Chicago

I have read the constitution. I have read the section on Congress and the Senate, and I see no where in the U.S. Constitution that gives Senator Harry Reid the power not to seat the person nominated to fill the seat of President Elect Obama -- Roland Burris.

Of course there's no surprise here, as liberals (notice I didn't say Democrats) have disregarded the Constitution many times in just the past eight years alone, and I've documented many of those instances right here on this blog.

Federalized Healthcare is unconstitutional, The McCain/ Feingold act was unconstitutional, the failed auto bailout, the banking bailout, Activist judges, and this is just a recent list.

Roland Burris recently said in an interview, "If that's to say something wrong with the governor, then you all have to deal with that, but the governor is still the governor of Illinois and still has the power. As a matter of fact, the governor just signed a directive that Rahm Emanuel's seat will be filled by special election, and the secretary of state signed that document. What's the difference?"

Burris is right: Governor Blagojevich of Illinois is still the Governor, he has not even been formally charged with any crime and is therefore officially not guilty until found guilty by a trial of his peers, and all the powers of any other governor are still the powers of this governor. Therefore, Senator Harry Reid is on thin ice rejecting this man.

It almost seems to me they are treating one of their own, a loyal liberal democrat, the same way they treated former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. According to the Constitution, you are innocent until proven guilty. But Delay was treated as though he were guilty until he finally gave up his seat.

Then again, the Senate does not have the Constitutional power to reject a nominated Senate appointee. He has no choice but to seat the Roland Burris. The law states an acting govnernor has a right to choose the person to fill a vacated seat in his state.

Again, I'm not saying whether I like or dislike Mr. Burris, because that's not the issue here. I'm not saying whether I like or dislike the Chicago Governor, what's at issue here is the Constitutional duty of the Senate.

Why it's important who you vote for

I'm sure you've heard by now the U.S. Supreme Court has defended, for the first time ever, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure you don't need me to provide you with the details as they have been plastered all over the newspapers these past few days. So we'll skip the details.

Sometimes I agree with Rush Limbaugh, and sometimes I do not. However, one thing I love about the man regardless is his philosophy. I love the way he always looks at things from the inside out and analyzes them. That's something I love to do.

That in mind, this is what he asked the other day: "What will the court tell us we can do today, and what will the court tell us we can't do?"

What I wanted to discuss today is this: Why is it that we sit around waiting for the Supreme Court to tell us what we have a right to do and what we do not have a right to do? Why is it we allow this court to decide our political issues? True, this is an idea Rush lead me to.

Today we are happy, but the next time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they could just as easily usurp our individual rights.

Yesterday the Court defended the 2nd Amendment, it defended the individual right of the people of Washington D.C. to defend themselves in their homes, to bear arms if you will. Conservatives are leaping for joy, and liberals are wailing.

Not to get too excited, because a few days ago it was the other way around, as that same court ruled that the people of Louisiana are not smart enough to decide for themselves the proper punishment for those creeps who rape our children.

The people of louisiana wanted this law, they decided this, yet the same Supreme Court that defended individual rights yesterday ruled that the people of Louisiana are too stupid to decide that child rapers should be given the death penalty.

So, those five members of the Court overruled the will of the people.

Look at California as another recent example. You have the courts over there overruling the will of the people when it comes to gay marriage.

Those individuals voted overwhelmingly in support of traditional marriage, and this resulted in a law making marriage between a man and a woman, and a handful of men sitting behind a bench decided those people are too stupid to know any better about marriage, so they overruled the people.

Now, I couldn't care less about gun control, because it doesn't effect me one bit. I live in a small town, and we don't have bad things happen here (fingers crossed). Heck, we don't even lock our cars or houses. And I don't even care about gay marriage. If two guys or two gals want to get together, it doesn't bother me one bit.

The point is we, as a nation, get all excited, anxious, about how the court is going to rule, when it shouldn't be that way. How many people live in California? So, it's five or nine judges versus all 30 million or so people. I don't know how many people live there, but you get my point.

When it comes to gun control, you have nine justices versus 300 million people. Those 300 million people live under the Constitution, and those nine justices can take away any of those Constitutional rights with the flick of their pens.

Case in point is this: four justices voted against the 2nd amendment yesterday. Four liberal justices voted against the individual rights of 300 million people. That to me is scary.

As I was growing up, I learned that the Bill of Rights does not give us individual rights, the Bill of Rights does't give us individual rights, it protects the freedoms that we were born with. It makes sure that Washington cannot make a law taking away what is rightfully ours.

Of course there is a limit here. You cannot infringe on the rights of others. And this is why we have laws. And this is why we have courts to protect one person from others. What's the old saying: "Your right to throw your fist through the air ends where the other person's face begins."

That's why we have courts. We do not have courts to decide our political issues. Yet, considering liberal issues are not popular with the people, and since they cannot get legislatures to make liberal issues into law, they resort to petitioning liberal activist judges.

Since no legislature in the United States has ever made a law making gay marriage legal, and since the majority in most states oppose gay marriage, liberals petition the courts. And, those liberals got their way in California.

They got their way NOT because a law was written by a legislature, but because a court said so. However, the COURTS are made to rule based on the Constitution, not on their opinions. But, when it comes to liberals getting their way, who cares about the Constitution.

We learn that the Bill of Rights defends our "Inailienable" rights. That is, those are rights that are God given, and cannot be taken away. Yet, if we vote for a liberal president, and that president nominates activist judges to the benches, we could have our "inailienable" rights taken away.

This is a perfect example of why we need to pay close attention to who we vote for. We know that Obama places the Constitution as secondary to the opinions of the world. We've even had justices who have made rulings not based on the U.S. Constitution, but on what courts of other nations have decided.

Europeans are adamantly against the death penalty. Therefore, it only makes sense that the U.S. should be against it too. The "World" is pro gay marriage, so the U.S. should be pro-gay marriage too.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant the members of the Supreme Court rights to decide this, but they have granted this right to themselves. Actually, it started way back when John Adams was president.

I love this kind of deep stuff. I'll write more on this in the days to come.

Federalized health care might be unconstitutional

In my study of the healthcare proposals of the presidential candidates, I've learned that the goal is to make every American buy health insurance, and to punish those who do not.

I could not find anywhere what the punishment would be, but I'd imagine it would have something to do with tax refunds. They'll probably keep your check if you do not have health insurance.

One of the candidates said she "envision a day when everyone will have to prove they have health insurance when they go to a job interview."

This all sounds fine and dandy to me, but I'm wondering: how can the government do this? Is it legal?

Then upon my study of the Constitution, and reading various opinions, I can find no place in the U.S. Constitution giving the government the right to force people to buy health care, let alone punish people who don't buy it.

Another thing I read is that federalized health care might lead to the government eventually making people have health check-ups. Setting the cost of this aside, is it any business of the government to force me to go to see my doctor.

What happens if I don't go? Will I have to go to jail? What happens if I'm 400 pounds and smoke? Is the government going to force me to go to a rehab center to fix my problems. What if I don't consider these problems? What if I enjoy being 400 pounds? What if I enjoy smoking?

Are they going to come at me with guns blazing? I mean, we do have a constitutional right to abuse our bodies if we want. Don't we? I can still salt my food and eat Big Macs at McDonald's if I want, don't I? 

I don't know about you, but this bill sounds kind of like communism. Personally, I think I have a right to be wrong. I have a right to be stupid. I have a right to abuse my body. I have a right not to go to the doctor. I have a right to not buy into a healthcare plan because I'm healthy and am willing to take the risk. 

In looking at it this way, is it possible that Federalized Health care is unconstitutional?  I think it is.  What about you?