GOD.
Posted on 10/21/2004 6:30:24 AM PDT by mattdono
Did you catch John Kerry's gaffe in the third debate?
No, not the one about Mary Cheney being born a lesbian. That abusive and cynical outburst produced gasps in living rooms around the nation and certainly cost Kerry votes.
But there was a more serious gaffe in the debate. It revealed how Kerry's vision of government is at odds not just with that of George Bush but with that of America's founders. In answer to a question about gay marriage, Kerry said: "Because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people."
"A gaffe," as columnist Michael Kinsley once wrote, "is when a politician tells the truth." In this case, Kerry's gaffe is an inadvertent statement of what he -- and many on the left -- believe is the truth but is actually false and dangerous.
The key phrase was "rights that we afford people." This was no mistake. He said it twice.
Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.
That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.
Where do our rights come from if they don't come from government? They come from God -- which may be why John Kerry doesn't get it.
The Declaration of Independence makes the relationship between citizens and government crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," it says, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." (In other words, God gives us rights that can't be taken away.) "Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- which is to say, everything.
Now, what's the job of government? The Declaration says that it is "to secure these rights." And, to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the document emphasizes that governments "are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is no small matter. Alexander Hamilton, who is being honored in a wonderful exhibition here at the New-York Historical Society, wrote in 1774, "That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable upon every rational principle. All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right."
Hamilton was 19 at the time. Kerry, who is 60, has another view, befitting the senator rated farthest left by the National Journal.
Kerry sees government as a great benefactor, bestowing gifts on us (paid for with our own money), as long as we behave in ways that government approves.
Bush, on Oct. 13, eloquently expressed the opposing vision: "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives." The founders would agree.
From these two different visions come different policies. Bush wants lower taxes because "it's your money." Kerry wants higher taxes so he can build, for example, a nationalized health care system.
Bush will preserve Social Security for people now getting benefits, but he thinks "younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account." In an "ownership society," people are free to control their own assets, their own destiny. Government guards that freedom.
In the debate, Kerry offered no plan to save Social Security. Instead, he blasted Bush's reform as "an invitation to disaster." He doesn't think that Americans can make decisions about big things; he wants government to grant rights and benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think government should be passive. George Washington's Farewell Address, which Hamilton largely wrote, states, "In a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable."
Government's job is to keep us free, which is what George Bush has been trying to do -- in foreign policy and domestic.
GOD.
And, this mentality spreads well beyond any domestic discussions.
I think that is why you will only find those on the left that will make arguments (not just excuses, though there's a healthy dose of that too) for not having taking action in Iraq.
The leftists don't understand what Natural Laws are, because most leftists don't believe in God, aren't proud to be God-fearing people, or morally equivocate God with worshiping trees, animals, or other things. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the existence of Natural Laws, because the moral precept is not there for them.
And, this reality (for them) is what foments the silly arguments that they put forth.
You can ask a lefty 2 questions that deconstructs their belief system.
QUESTION 1: "Do the Iraqi people have a natural right to not be tortured, to not be raped, to not watch your daughter, wife, or mother be gang raped, to not have your tongue cut out, to not watch your son have his eyes put out?
They will usually (hopefully?) respond, "Of course not."
QUESTION 2: "Do the Iraqi people have a natural right to freedom and liberty?"
Here's where the lefties define themselves for the despicable human beings that they are.
The leftists usually respond to question 2 with something along the lines of, "Well, their liberty may not necessarily be the same as my liberty"; or, "Who am I to tell them how they should live"; or, "You have to understand their culture, they don't know that kind of freedom and we shouldn't be telling them what their freedom should be" (or some similar derivation).
The leftists don't understand that freedom and liberty have absolutely nothing to do with where you live or how you have lived (or have been forced to live) in the past.
Freedom and liberty are inside every man's soul. The craven leftists even use "freedom" and "liberty" as the knee-jerk defenses to so many things (suspending a cross in urine or "painting" the Virgin Mary in excrement, just to name two), but it has to fit their definition.
I guess we can get to enjoying the freedom of excrement painting after we can help people realize so of the simple liberties...like not having to be gang-raped on the whims of a madman.
But, you know, I'm a conservative, so I guess my opinion is invalid.
Exactly.. Also America is NOT a democracy(Mob Rule)... even though democrats(and a few republicans) are FOR democracy and worse for morphing America INTO a democracy.. The are three words NOT found in the American Constitution ANYWHERE by design;
1) democracy...
2) democratic...
3) democrat....
(because democracy SUCKS)
NOTE ** Americas Republic is unique. There are no other governments like it in the past or present.. In the democracys of URP and Canada there are virtually NO RIGHTS...Mere privledges granted by their governments, which can be taken away at the will of the biggest MOB.. Because URPean governments are democracys...
Forest. Trees, my FRiend.
Hey, it took some doing but we found it; see #76
Well that was dumb. I posted the reply thinking I was on the ATRW thread.
Heres the link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250876/posts
Hee...It's okay...I'll still think you're cool.
"However, the copy in the National Archives reads "unalienable"."
That's the one I was using.
No inalienable right can be "taken away"/ prohibited from Americans by our governments.
They can only be reasonably regulated, using due process of Constitutional law. -- Part of due process is the individuals right to a fair trial, & upon conviction, the individual may lose certain rights. The right remains inalienable for all others.
But we have other natural or fundamental rights which may be regulated by government without individual due process. Free speech, for example. Ownership of arms. Drugs.
Such 'regulation', if it unreasonably infringes on the individuals basic right, is unconstitutional. These questionable infringements are to be decided by juries, not legislators.
Many of our "rights" are regulated and/or attenuated (eg., you must be 16, or 18, or 21 years old) without individual due process, impossible with a God-given right.
True enough, seeing that our rights are not god-given. Rights are the self evident constructs of our nature, our free will.
LOL! OK.
You are attempting to place all "rights" in one basket (call them what you will). But you can't do that -- it's not the way things work.
We may form a government which says, "Your right to drink alcohol is not protected by the state until you are 21". We may not form a governmemnt which says, "Your right to life is not protected by the state until you are 21".
Why not? Your right to life is a God-given (u)inalienable right which cannot be taken away without individual due process. Your fundamental (natural) right to drink alcohol may be regulated -- it can be taken away from (ie., not protected) certain groups of individuals by the state without individual due process, as long as it is applied equally and there is a compelling state interest.
The government cannot do that with (u)inalienable rights.
You are attempting to place all "rights" in one basket (call them what you will).
Our rights to life liberty & property are all in "one basket". Individual human rights are not defined by governments.
But you can't do that -- it's not the way things work.
Paulsen, you just don't want them to 'work' that way. You want governments to have the power to prohibit rights under the guise of 'regulating'.
We may form a government which says, "Your right to drink alcohol is not protected by the state until you are 21".
The question remains, is this a reasonable regulation? I say no. 18 is reasonable.
We may not form a governmemnt which says, "Your right to life is not protected by the state until you are 21". Why not? Your right to life is a God-given (u)inalienable right which cannot be taken away without individual due process.
Yet you claim that a woman's right to control her life can be lawfully ceded to the State from the moment of conception. Where is the individual due process in that concept?
Your fundamental (natural) right to drink alcohol may be regulated -- it can be taken away from (ie., not protected) certain groups of individuals by the state without individual due process, as long as it is applied equally and there is a compelling state interest.
You favor absolute State prohibition on many substances & objects. This is 'taking away' not regulating.
The government cannot do that with (u)inalienable rights.
All of our rights are inalienable.
Governments have no granted powers to prohibit, just to reasonably regulate.
BUMP
Governments may reasonably regulate our right to life? Governments may say that the right to life is not protected until, say, age 3?
This is where you get into trouble with your "big basket" theory. And now we'll have to put up with 20 or 30 of your follow-on posts where you try to weasel out of it.
Weasel away. I'm done.
Your fundamental (natural) right to drink alcohol may be regulated -- it can be taken away from (ie., not protected) certain groups of individuals by the state without individual due process, as long as it is applied equally and there is a compelling state interest.
The government cannot do that with (u)inalienable rights.
You favor absolute State prohibitions on many substances, objects, & behaviors. This is 'taking away' rights, not regulating them.
All of our rights are inalienable.
Governments have no granted powers to prohibit, just to reasonably regulate.
Governments may reasonably regulate our right to life?
Obviously, they cannot, not reasonably.
Governments may say that the right to life is not protected until, say, age 3?
No, they can't 'say' that. Governments are not granted the power to define when the personal rights of a developing baby begin to trump the rights of its mother. -- Under American law, a jury can decide if such an abortion is murder. No one else.
This is where you get into trouble with your "big basket" theory.
I have no problem with conforming to our Constitutional "big basket". -- You do.
And now we'll have to put up with 20 or 30 of your follow-on posts where you try to weasel out of it. Weasel away. I'm done.
You've always been 'done' paulsen. Your anti-constitutional political stance has become an FR joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.