Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.
Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.
Governments do not grant rights nor does it create them. Rather individual rights/liberties are granted by our Creator and recognized as natural laws.
The US government was instituted originally to secure those God given individual liberties as codified and affirmed in our Constitution. Today the sole purpose of our federal government appears to be the use of a Leviathan inspired bureaucracy to limit our access to those same liberties/freedoms and when deemed necessary for the growth of centralized control, to regulate or legislate them away.
It was the "freedom of religion" crowd if I remember correctly. Before that is was a private health issue. Religion has no place in the conversation.
Look, not one person was even talking about that issue when all of a sudden, Stepdlkfjdsf asked it to the candidates in a debate a while back. They were all like "what? why are we talking about this?" Not long after Obama came out with this out of no where. And its not going away.
Religion absolutely has a place in this. You know their beliefs and if you disagree, attend another school. Find another place of work.
This only shows that there will be no limit to what they will force to have someone else pay for. It is not going to stop the longer we have these type of people in power, thinking they can do whatever the hell they want.
1. A Right creates no incumbency on any other person, save non-interference.
2. With Rights come Responsibilities.
3. Rights are not granted by government, but are recognized and defended by government.
3. Rights are limits on government.
4. Rights inhere in individuals and NEVER groups.
5. All human beings are endowed with natural Rights by virtue of having a conscience, hence animals have no Rights. BUT we have a Responsibility to husband natural resources, both flora and fauna, with respect, compassion, and sense.
1. A Right creates no incumbency on any other person, save non-interference.
2. With Rights come Responsibilities.
3. Rights are not granted by government, but are recognized and defended by government.
3. Rights are limits on government.
4. Rights inhere in individuals and NEVER groups.
5. All human beings are endowed with natural Rights by virtue of having a conscience, hence animals have no Rights. BUT we have a Responsibility to husband natural resources, both flora and fauna, with respect, compassion, and sense.
Nobody would be thinking about BC if it hadn't been turend into a political football. Nobody. Everyone looks like a fool.
Especially HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius who accidently outed herself as a population reduction eugenicist cloaked as an Obamacare bean counter yesterday before a Ways and Means hearing.
I consider this to be a major distinction that has been somewhat lost in people's thinking: A right is protection from legal prosecution for the thing. A right is not an entitlement to have a thing provided for you by a third party.
For example: Everyone today has the right to health care, ie. no one is legally barred from receiving it. No one should have health care paid for free and clear by a third party. The right to health care and the ability to provide the service are two separate things.
To pick an example on the other side of the political spectrum, gay marriage should be a right. People should have the right to pursue marrying someone regardless of sex. Now, should that marriage be paid for by a governmental party? No. A person only has the right to pursue it. In my mind, people should have the legal protection to marry anyone, however government should not recognize marriage of any kind (heterosexual or homosexual). The inherent right to marriage is simply a protection from legal recourse, not a guarantee of government funded benefits.
A right is the legal protection to pursue/enjoy something. It is not the receiving of a physical good or service.
As individuals we have the right to life, liberty, private property and the pursuit of happiness.
That's about it as far as what has been guaranteed as individual rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
