The only way to deal with such rabid thinking and bankrupt morality by liberal Democrats is to approach it line-by-line and deal with these idiotic thoughts individually. It is truly difficult to contemplate what core belief such lunatics embrace (Ina Hughs writing is in italics).
"Our rights come from God and nature, not from government."
Those words brought rousing ovations in Norfolk, Va., as Paul Ryan accepted his candidacy as Mitt Romney's running mate.
Rousing ovations IS
the right way to react to such words. This is the foundation of the American experiment in liberty. The basic thinking in the creation of a free people as the American experiment in liberty as conceived, dealt with the concept of inalienable and unalienable rights of the people. I have written about this topic ad nauseum in the past. The thinking simply follows as such...
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
Therefore, those rights conferred upon us by the simple virtue of being human are those that God grant us and cannot be taken or given away. Conversely, those that are granted to us by government, such as the right to have certain goods or services given to us or other rights created to benefit us can be taken away or not delivered due to various reasons including arbitrary ones.
But even high-octane tea drinkers from the Grand Old Party surely don't intend for our government to renege on its responsibility to ensure not only our civil rights, but our safety, our productivity, our well-being and our freedom.
This is the illness that most Liberals and Democrats suffer from. Conflating and misrepresenting the rights of individuals and the additional responsibilities that were delegated to the several states are lumped, now, into national responsibilities whereas they just are not. These frothing at-the-mouth liberals think of government as a government without limits. Take one example as this writer says later, arguing that government forcing people to insure automobiles as being an important and reasonable responsinbility of government. However, where the slight of hand comes in is that government does not force you to buy a car but makes you buy the insurance if you do. Additionally, this is in no way the responsibility of the Federal State and is, still, the responsibility of the 'several states'. No one in the Republican party is question this at all. So what relevance does this have?
The beauty of the American system is that when states overstepped their authority, one can vote out the politicians that violated the sanctity of individual rights, fight them in court or ultimately leave the state if these obligations proved to be against one's better judgement, a violation of ones religion or morality or economically stupid. One can seek greater liberty down the road. One does not as readily have that option, the option to leave or vote with one's feet, if it is forced upon you by the Federal authority.
How silly to say government isn't the arbiter of our rights as Americans, the protector and safeguard of democracy. Maybe Ryan wants to play on the emotional issues of gay rights and reproduction rights, both of which the Republican platform seeks to convince Americans are anti-their-religion and anti-Mother-nature.
How silly to say that this is what is being said by either the framers or the lines cited above said by Paul Ryan. This is the bankruptcy of the Liberal Democratic left. This is not the argument or the choice, it is a false argument since a government of free people does exactly that, it Is the arbitrator of individual rights. Clearly, governments, even a government of free people are to restrict the rights of individuals by enforcing the inalienable rights that we have by being human.
Furthermore, gay rights and reproductive rights are rights that are conferred upon you by government and therefore are not inalienable but unalienable. These rights can be restricted or taken away. For example, reproductive rights that are code words for abortion are not available to males, obviously, but males are not allowed to terminate a pregnancy, even one that they may have been intimately involved with and therefore responsible for. What kind of right is it to have an abortion if a fetus is unwanted by the male? So is this a right conferred upon us by God and ergo inalienable? If true, then this seems like a God that I just do not know. So, therefore, I think that abortion rights are nothing but a construct of government. I argue that under current 'reproductive rights' thinking that males should have the right to terminate a pregnancy too. Contemplate that for for a while..
They like to posture government as a bogeyman that strips us of our freedom, religious and otherwise. But setting up a government that gives us all — rich, poor, black, white, old, young, powerful, marginal, majority, minority, liberal, conservative, born-again Baptist or Wiccan — the right to pursue happiness and live in peace was the patriots' dream long ago and what we have fought to sustain in every war since.
Government does not have the right to take away ones life, liberty or pursuit of happiness (property). So? What kind of frothing at-the-mouth is this nonsense? This is nto at all what Republicans are arguing for, the exact opposite what the writer was claiming earlier? There must be drool coming out of the writer's mouth by now.
Without government's intervention and participation, how else will we know, for a simple example, that meat at the supermarket is safe to eat? Can we really depend on the kindness of others to make sure our medications have been tested and come with proper warnings?
Sometimes the meat in supermarket and sometimes in our refrigerators are sickening. It has guaranteed nothing and government has over-and-over in many areas has proven incompetent or even complicit in making things worse. As far as food safety, I argue that the legal framework and the ability to gain just compensation from damaging practices does much more to protect people's food than government. Furthermore, by taking this portfolio out the people's hands, government continues to intervene beyond these supposed important and necessary interventions for our protection and restrict products that actually may save life and make us more healthy through regualtion and product restriction. I argue that the FDA has killed many many more people than they have saved through regulation and have made it all much more expensive for us.
What about our right to drive highways and interstates knowing others zooming along beside us have been checked out for basic skills, and should someone bash into us, they have coverage to help us with damages they caused? Rely on "human nature" to see to such requirements?
This line is not just stupid, its idiotic. This is not what the central authority has done at all. Its been done by the 50 states again conflating an overarching central government with real and necessary organization of daily life. in fact, we also enforce rules that all cars drive on the correct side of the street and it would be moronic to argue that anyone would want or desire to drive on the other side as a 'right' as contemplated by bozos such as Ina Hughs. So is the writer arguing that requiring people to drive on the same side of the street somehow is a restrictive right of government? Its truly stunning to make statements like this.
Besides, both God and nature send mixed messages. Remember when one American right here in Knoxville heard God tell him to go to the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Kingston Pike and shoot up the congregation during Sunday worship? Not long ago, a whole bunch of white people's God convinced them that black people were inferior, and they had scripture from the Good Book to prove it. Think about godly people who, except for government intervention, wanted to deny women full citizenship, the right to ownership, a place at the head of the table.
This is delving deeper and deeper into the pit of complete stupidity. God is not sending anyone messages on murder or on rights. God does not wake up every morning and grant us our rights. We, by virtue of being human, have these rights. A gratuitous swipe at Christians here and claiming that God tells believers to kill in some kind of message is relevent. These kinds of silly attacks on Christians is the blue blood of hard liberal left Democrats. It not just stupid to tread here is is monotonously idiotic.
Appointing nature — human or Mother — as dispenser and guardian of our civil rights instead of a government would undo the whole concept of democracy. What happens when human nature's inclinations clash, as certainly they do in a complex, diverse society like ours? Left to a certain segment of our population's "nature," guns would be outlawed. Plus, I doubt anybody could convince me that the God I know and believe in wants his children to walk around carrying rapid-fire assault weapons. Somebody might ought to tell Ryan that it's government, not God or nature, that gives us our rights as Americans.
Ina Hughes goes even deeper and asserting that Republicans or Ryan is asserting that anarchy is what is being argued for? A 3rd grader would be able to distinguish the difference but apparently not Liberal Democrats? And then going into guns. Usual Liberal Democrat tripe. Some people choose to go without arms, some choose to. It is truly the liberty that we have to protect ourselves. God never argues that we be doormats to despotism and I would never be a doormat that the despotism as offered up by the socialism promoted by Democrats. I thank God that I still have access to a weapon.
It's a catchy sound bite, but you cannot have 313 million people turned loose under the same flag and expect them to grant and protect rights as defined by their different religious beliefs and their various definitions of acceptable human behavior.
No one is even saying that this is the case. We have the right to worship as we see fit. But if Ina Hughs is arguing that religions that advocate violence are to be allowed to behave like this, then this is just plain silliness. No one, Republicans or anyone else is arguing for this kind of life.
It reminds me of the story about the city guy who says to the farmer, "This is a wonderful place God gave you."
"Yeah," says the farmer. "But you should've seen the conditions it was in when it was just God looking after it."
The grass may not be greener on the other side after all. Statements like this are pure fertilizer — for weeds.
Ina Hughs is a clown. She shows us how ridiculous Democrats are these days. using logic like this to continue socialism as contemplated by Democrats displays how bankrupt this immoral philosophy truly is.
Ina Hughs: Rights come from government, not God » Knoxville News Sentinel