Perhaps the most dangerous threat to America is the Liberal hijacking of our good intentions. They play upon our good will, our compassion, our native tolerance, generosity and mercy; leading us down the proverbial road to hell. This route is plotted by identifying social and economic challenges; crafting solutions that sound noble, but which in fact erode individual liberties and expand government power. The most popular misnomer for this con is the invocation of “rights.”
This is a very dangerous temptation for the public. Because we have been taught that we have legitimate rights; those outlined in the Declaration of independence (“...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”) and secured by the limits on government power in the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights.”
There are three critically important things to understand about those rights:
• The first is their acknowledged source: our “Creator.” This means that our Rights are beyond the reach of just Earthly power. They are “inalienable:” meaning they cannot be lawfully infringed, usurped, over-ruled, taken, bought, sold, transferred or surrendered.
• The second is that individual rights are undefined whereas government powers are specifically constrained. The only limits on individual liberties are where they intersect with those of others. My rights end where yours begin.
But the powers of government are clearly defined and limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, the founder’s determination to limit government’s power was so strong that they included the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In layman’s terms this means, if later, you think of a power that we forgot to deny you, you can’t do that either.
• The third and most important is that since our rights are by definition Divine in origin and acknowledged as inalienable by our contract with government, no governmental body has the lawful or moral authority to deny, create or expand our rights.
Much has been made of Rand Paul’s unfortunate interview with Rachel Maddow. He made three blunders. The first was to even consider appearing for Rachel Maddow; one of the most devious vipers in the Leftist cabal. The second was to allow her to trap him into addressing a complex constitutional issue (Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that could not be properly discussed in her 30-minute format. The third and probably worst mistake was to reverse his position afterward.
Honestly, Title II is a mess. On one hand it outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; but exempted hotels having five or fewer rooms in which the proprietor also lived; and private clubs without defining the term “private.” So even if did not violate the constitutional authority of the federal government (by exceeding the explicit authority of the Commerce Clause), its poor construction still leaves it wanting strictly on the basis of clear cut enforcement.
But the biggest problem with Title II is the same problem it shares with many other laws built on the shaky “good-intentions” foundation: it violates one set of primal constitutionally protected rights with a new set of contrived, statutory rights. While you will be hard-pressed to find a Liberal who will admit it or any politician or judge who will publicly consider it; Title II restrictions violate private property rights. Furthermore, there is no constitutional, moral or logical argument that can refute this fact.
There are really only two arguments in favor of Title II; both of them lame.
• One is good old fashioned political expediency – it’s just too much trouble to face the maelstrom of hysterical hot buttons and vitriolic name-calling that would result from any attempt to conduct a sane public dialogue on the topic.
• The other is that property rights had already been so thoroughly decimated by all the previous “good intentions” violations at the hands of Liberals that the property-rights argument against Title II seems hollow.
All of these events are proof of the awesome power of the Fourth Estate. For the most poignant argument against Title II is the same one that has been effectively employed to preserve at least the pretense of journalistic independence and the increasingly meaningless individual right to free self-expression.
Title II denies business owners the most fundamental right of private property ownership: The power to decide, entirely on their own rationale, who may or may not enter, occupy or use their property. The fact that it was intended to end one of the most callous practices to have ever existed is nevertheless irrelevant in terms of dispassionate objective analysis.
But when choosing between the preservation of vital rights for all, over the abolition of shameful behavior by some, our choice to end a universal right only to stop an isolated behavior is shortsighted enough to justifiably be called stupid. It’s like suicide: a permanent, irrevocable solution to a temporary, isolated problem.
For example, recently there have been some pretty vile events perpetrated against gays by the Westboro Baptist Church, and other hateful expressions towards veterans by members of Code Pink. These organizations and their blatantly hateful, universally repugnant and wholly counterproductive behaviors have elicited very strong reactions across racial, ethnic and political lines. Yet when anyone suggests that they should be silenced, the media is quick to declare that the sacred right of free speech is more important than our desire to silence these few horrible people.
Yet, when a few racist bigots refuse to serve blacks, neither politicians, nor the Supreme Court, nor the media say a word to defend the sacred property rights of every American living and yet to be born.
This is beyond hypocrisy. It is willful negligence of our duty as citizens. It is breach of contract by elected officials and judges, who have sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And it is a cowardly appeasement by the media, of the Leftist oligarchy – those cut from the same Collectivist cloth that has silenced public dissent and honest journalism on every continent of the Earth.
To those who call my words racist, I remind them that the core of racism is the willingness to blind one’s self to the harm they cause by placing their personal prejudices above the moral obligation of equal justice. The human failure that allows racism is the same weakness that justifies tyranny and oppression in all its forms. Let us never mistake the nature of evil simply because it hides itself in good intentions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment