Posts Tagged ‘rights’
The Tea Party Republicans in Washington claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give them to them anyway. – Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
I get pretty rabid out here at times. And I usually hold no quarter for liberals despite the whiny gripes of moderates and liberals who ask me to “tone it down” because they don’t want to hear the harsh rhetoric.
Of course they forget, this blog is The Rabid Conservative. But hey, I figure if I speak the way most liberals do, perhaps they’ll understand, right?
Nah, I didn’t think so either.
At least I’ve never elected to say that some Americans, even the liberal ones, didn’t deserve the freedoms and liberties that I enjoy.
So anyway, take this crumb-cake, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey making the crazy statement that makes one wonder if he wasn’t drunk, stoned, or just completely stupid when saying. If New Jersey has the shape of a boot, then Lautenberg, based on his latest comment, is the fungus under the toenail.
So he had the audacity to say that Tea Party Republicans didn’t “deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution”.
So, who died and made you a Founding Father, you jerk? I’m sure there are tea-partiers all over the state of New Jersey who you just slighted with your off-the-wall comment, saying they don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution. They deserve them as much as you do. And I’m exercising them right now, beginning with the freedom of speech.
He went on to say, “But we’ll give them to them anyway.”
Oh, thanks be to the all-mighty Frank Lautenberg, the one who now bestows rights on us lowly Americans. Oh, as if he had any say in the matter.
What a clown. How does Gov. Christie put up with having a doofus like him in his state anyway?
I’m going to go pray to the One who bestows rights to people now, in penance for my rabid attitude another expression of my Constitutional liberty, and not just because you give me license, Frankie-boy.
The NH Supreme court ruled on March 16th that a child would be required to be taken out of her home school, a school which she doesn’t want to leave, and be put into public school because the child was not given the opportunity to explore other points of view, other than her religious beliefs.
It doesn’t matter that the kid is ahead of her peers academically or that the kid doesn’t want to go to public school. No, because she has adamant religious beliefs, the State has concluded that she isn’t open-minded enough and that the public school is required to remedy that, a position that the non-custodial father agrees with.
Now this statement is really more subtle from the NH Supremes because it was a lower court decision being upheld by the NH Supreme Court. And the NH Supreme Court decided that because it’s a parent-vs-parent squabble, they would avoid the whole homeschooling point. But the case is all about whether the child is to be forced into a public school setting against her wishes.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court is clearly overstepping its bounds in this case. It is not up to the state to determine whether a kid is being exposed to this view or that. It’s up to the parents to decide the educational future of the child. And while I believe the father does get a legal say in it, really, it’s not up to him, since it’s mom that has custody.
Again, did we mention, the kid academically superior and socially interactive (a too-common and ignorant myth made about homeschoolers). But because she has a religious opinion and is vehemently adamant about it, she is punished by a society that, once again, has it in for homeschoolers.
Of course, the liberal ignoramuses in New Hampshire can’t accept that because liberals believe in using the powers of the State to get what they want, rather than deferring to the correct authority – the parent.
Another reason why I think all liberals should just take a long walk off a short pier. When they lose in the marketplace of ideas, they use the government to coerce people into getting their way and then claim victory in the name of liberalism.
One of the comments to this article asked the question, “well, why doesn’t mom and kid move to a state that is more friendly towards homeschool”.
The answer, actually is that if mom attempted to do that, there is precedent that could cost mom the rights, particularly in the socially liberal state of New Hampshire. The story of Lisa Miller’s fight to keep her daughter from her former lesbian lover Janet Jenkins comes to mind. At present, Lisa Miller is missing, probably out of the country, since Vermont ordered that Ms. Miller surrender her daughter to Jenkins, a woman who is not her parent, both legally and biologically, yet has managed to gain custody because of the so-called gay rights sentiment in Vermont.
My guess is that if this parent attempted to flee, she would lose custody of her child.
Basically, in reading the Court’s opinion, Dad became discontented because he wasn’t getting enough time with his daughter, and because his little girl wasn’t integrating with his family situation, given that he had remarried and had another child by her. Because the kid objects to his behavior, she is being messed up by mom and her church.
I’m telling you, this kid is going to grow up hating her father and maybe her mother in a few years – she’s 12 or 13 now. In just five years, the kid is going to resent them for all of this. It’s in these cases that the child is completely powerless. I really hate these kinds of stories.
The thing is, the kid doesn’t want to be in public school, so what is that going to do to her grades? She’s not going to associate with kids in her school. She’s probably going to rebel and what will happen then? Kid will probably end up suspended.
And all because Daddy can’t handle the fact that daughter has an opinion that differs from his and his childish pride can’t accept that.
Within the Declaration of Independence, one of our most hallowed and sacred of documents covering the governance of our land, there are three inalienable rights of man, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that every American and every human has these three basic rights. However, as we learned, these rights can override one another, as we learned from Oliver Wendell Holmes. So, as I think over this list, I see that it is an ordered list, and correctly prioritized.
In other words, the right to life reigns over the right to liberty; the right to liberty trumps the right to the pursuit of happiness. So, it is improper, then, for one’s pursuit of happiness to infringe on another man’s liberty, and a man’s liberty should never override another person’s right to life.
I think about the abortion issue and the fact that I believe the unborn child, from conception to birth, is a human life and is deserving of equal protection. I do not believe that a woman’s pursuit of happiness should ever override that baby’s right to life.
Now, if one chooses to give up their right to life so that another might have the right to life, or even more, the right to liberty, this is an act of bravery and courage. The Bible even says, “scarcely for a good man would one dare to die”. My brethren and sisters-in-arms offer up their lives so that I may have the right to liberty – and for that, I offer my humblest gratitude, as we all should, for they are the true heroes of our country, not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid.
Giving up one’s liberty for someone else’s happiness, however, is an act of stupidity, and giving up one’s right to life for another’s happiness is an atrocity.
So we see there is a priority to these rights and I believe George Mason, who penned these words into the Virgina Declaration of Rights might agree with my premise*. But even if he would not, I do believe that there are priorites to rights, based on the precedents set in the Scriptures.
Lastly, these truths are self-evident, that is, they need no explanation. And just like the charges listed in the Declaration, one has to suspend rational and logical thought to not see it this way.
*An interesting sidenote is that Mason was in-fact a slave-owner. Even more interestingly, he was, at heart, an anti-slavery advovate. He said, “It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them.” So he might not have truly agreed with my premise, given his right to property and pursuit of happiness would not be overridden by their right to liberty, but I digress.