One of the most maddening realities of government worship is the fact that all citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have lost track of the definition of the term 'unalienable.' Do you know what it means? It is not hard to understand. Something that is unalienable is incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. By necessary deduction, unalienable rights are rights that are incapable of being surrendered or transferred. By equally necessary deduction, unalienable civil rights are incapable of being surrendered or transferred. Do you see the significance of that truth?
The Declaration of Independence says that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The "pursuit of happiness" clause is generally misunderstood these days. When Jefferson penned those words he was doing so under the influence of John Lock who equated happiness with the right of personal property. One highly intelligent blog writer (not me) has described it this way, "The 'pursuit of happiness', as expressed in the Declaration of Independence,
relates to the inalienable, indefeasible, and perfect right of human
beings to seek that which gives them personal gratification – whether it
be through commerce, the acquisition of property, the building of
wealth, the composition of music, or the charity disposed upon others.
Jefferson’s usage, although clearly derived from Locke, goes far beyond
the Lockean right to acquire property or create wealth – as has been
latched onto by most who seek to interpret the phrase. It includes not
only the right to pursue that which provides one with personal
satisfaction, but also the right to simply be left alone – if that makes
I believe Jefferson was on to something and that is why I, and a long list of very smart dead guys from our past, believe that the three civil rights described in the Declaration of Independence were the rights to life, freedom and property. I have posted to this blog many times on this position in the past. If you want to see the argument in detail go here, here, here and here. Today I will presuppose that what I have written earlier is correct. What is bothering me today, indeed, what has driven me into an almost uncontrollable rage, is what I read in my Denver Post last week. In particular, I read two articles that had a lot to say about the civil rights of the citizens of the SDA. Let me tell you about them.
The first article was about TABOR. TABOR, for those of you reading this blog who are not citizens of Coloraodo, is the taxpayer bill of rights. The Colorado taxpayer bill of rights was passed into law by the majority vote of the citizens of the state twenty years ago. Fed up with runaway state spending the majority of the taxpayers decided to enact a law to tie the hands of the career politicians and professional bureaucrats in this state. The law is simple on a grand scale. The state may only increase its annual budget at the same rate of the growth of the economy. If the economy grew by 2% last year, the state may increase the budget by 2%. In years in which the state is mired in a recession and experiences negative growth, the state may not increase the budget at all. Since the next year's budget is calculated based upon the prior year's growth it is possible to end up with a surplus of funds at the end of a fiscal year. When that happens the TABOR law clearly specifies that all surplus funds are to be returned to the taxpayers the next year.
Guess what? Colorado ran a surplus last year. Also guess what? The career politicians who rule over us want to keep that surplus. Here is what the newspaper had to say about it, "A low income Colorado family may get an extra $220 tax refund on next year's filing. A middle class taxpayer may see an average break near $40. A higher earner could save as much as $76....The question is simple: Do people want their refunds or do they want the state to spend the money?...An effort from education advocates to ask voters to spend the money is taking shape. And a Democratic state senator championed a bill this week to direct all surplus money toward schools." What part of TABOR do our rulers not understand? The law is the law, why are they trying to circumvent it? I have an unalienable right to my property, including my money. What right does the state have to take money from me, that the law requires be returned to me by the way, in order to pay for my neighbor's kids to go to school? The mere fact that the representatives of the people in the Colorado statehouse are willing to even entertain the idea of keeping the surplus funds clearly indicates that TABOR is a joke. Colorado citizens have no civil rights unless they are granted to them by the state legislature and that same state legislature can take them away at any time. There is a word for what the state is doing. It is called stealing and, last time I checked, it was immoral. Colorado legislators seem incapable of understanding that my rights are unalienable and not subject to their willful grants or withdrawals.
The next morning I settled down with my paper to read an article entitled, "Parents Bill of Rights: GOP effort moves on..." Here is what I learned, "A Republican bill to establish a parent's bill of rights, giving them authority over every aspect of their children's health care and education, is moving to the Senate floor....Senator Tim Neville, R-Littleton, said parent's rights are 'under increasing attack' in all public venues, and the bill is an effort to 'halt the overreach.'" Did you see the presupposition under girding this proposed new law? Look carefully and you will find it.
Let's talk about reality for a moment. In the real world I have total and absolute authority over my children. I have authority over their health care, their education, their allowance, their household chores, their household rules and everything else that pertains to them. Government did not grant me the right to rule my children, God did. The right to rule my children is an unalienable right. My children are my children. They belong to me, not the state. Now I realize that the state does not agree with my assessment in this matter. The state sees children in a variety of ways. From the perspective of the state children exist to become future government school students who will learn about the glories of the Amerikan empire, they exist to spy upon their parents by turning them in to the police when they witness violations of drugs laws in their homes, they exist to become future cannon fodder for the military in the prosecution of its glorious wars of imperial expansion, they exist to become future taxpayers to fund the operations of the all-encompassing State and they exist to produce more children to keep the process running in perpetuity.
I reject the State's view of children and repudiate all claims of the State upon mine. I also repudiate the presupposition that the State can "give me authority over my children's health care and education" by means of a new law. The state does not have the authority to grant to me the right to raise my children as I see fit. My right to raise my children as I see fit is an unalienable right. As such it is not subject to any claims from the State, whether they be positive or negative claims. The right to raise my children my way is an unalienable right and the State had best keep its nose out of my business.
God grants unalienable rights and when representatives in the State attempt to meddle in the matters of rights that God has granted to me they are walking on dangerous ground. Make no mistake, God will not be mocked. All civil representatives need to repent of their beliefs and associated behaviors which indicate that they believe they are the source of my unalienable rights.