American Exceptionalism the concept of unalienable rights

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/faith-and-freedom

Newt Gingrich and the author of the Economist article are both incorrect about what creates American exceptionalism. The author of the article is of course disparaging Gingrich because the Author is a liberal and he is expected to attack republicans wherever possible.

It would have been more effective to disparage Gingrich for dragging in God to what is otherwise the correct answer about American exceptionalism.

It is 100% correct to conclude American Exceptionalism comes from Americans understanding we are endowed with individual unalienable rights. It has nothing at all to do with God. The world creator was chosen to encompass any concept, idea or myth about the individuals existence to merely put forth the understanding that you existing is why you have those rights.

What needed to be explained better by Gingrich is ALL rights an individual can imagine are his unalienable rights. The Right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness really do define any right possible and ensure it is not possible to define a right that would deny the same to all other individuals.

The individual on his own or in cooperation with others now can become exceptional, once the individual realizes he is the owner of his rights as well as the one who defines his rights along with the most important concept of the rights being unalienable, the individual is not even able to voluntarily give up his rights, let alone have them taken.

The Federal government or more specifically the liberals, progressives and religious conservatives do not understand the true concept of owning ALL unalienable rights by the individual. Evidence for this lack of understanding is the incorrect Supreme Court ruling that created the unconstitutional concept of Privilege. Rights defined by the individual and unalienable are never a privilege. The government has no authority to create or grant rights and it has no authority to alienate an individual from his rights and that includes declaring rights privileges. Another example of this is the entire socialist/liberal varieties of welfare. A person has the right to his life and pursuit of happiness, which includes the property and wealth he creates. There is no condition available to alienate an individual from the right to the fruits of his labors in the name of giving it to others. Gay marriage is another example. The right to happiness in life and the freedom to pursue what makes an individual happy is entirely defined by the individual, which would include who this individual associates with and the definition of that relationship. There is no authority in the concept of unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that allows the government or a society to define the types of acceptable relationships for happiness to be pursued.

What makes America exceptional is the fact that all rights are owned by the individual upon his existence and are unalienable. Knowing you can define your own rights, which includes by default defining and owning your entire existence plus doing as you will with your existence, including keeping what you produce is what allows America to be the best country in the world.

It has nothing at all to do with God. Even if God could be proven to exist as the sole grantor of rights, the fact that God is unable to take those unalienable rights away is what makes those rights only part of the individual.

Gingrich is wrong to make it appear as if God is the arbiter of rights. The reason it is a mistake is both a lack of understanding the declaration's words correctly but also this God sourced rights concept creates a false condition of control over rights outside the individual. Meaning God, or more specifically, priests, ministers and imams who claim to speak for god, will being to determine your rights based on bibles, korans or their own delusions and use those same sources to alienate rights as well. It is the same effect we have now with the various American governments believing they have authority to alienate the individual from his rights. The more dangerous outcome of this is eventually the secular and theocratic political class will begin to grants its own class "rights" to itself that contradict or even attempt to alienate the individual from his rights, including life. Effectively the political class will create its own group rights which do not have the natural control individual unalienable rights have. The control is the individual is unable to grant himself a right that alienates others from their own rights. The political class granted rights have no natural protection from this dangerous concept.

Still Gingrich at least understands we do have unalienable rights, which is significantly better than the liberals in the democrat party who believe the individual has no rights at all beyond what they grant to the collective.

The Founders wanted the states to have to Compete for population and be a check on Federal Power

In this previous post, The Political Shaman described how the loss of the protections we the people had to prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannical. One additional benefit to this is ensuring states compete for population, which is a benefit to the people.

http://thepoliticalshaman.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-democrats-removed-protections.html

The post describes the protections Madison said protected us. Specifically they are the Senate elected by state legislature and the feds Barred from all forms of direct taxation of the people.

The reason for both are simple. Senators having to answer to states for federal costs is easier for the people to control. Our impact on the state legislature is for more direct than a federal senator. Madison said specifically one part of congress needs to be protected from mob rule, which was supposed to be the senate.

The second part is the money. In effect, Madison said without the money, the Feds can't become tyrants. It costs a lot of resources to oppress people. Also, the states governments, who the feds were to bill for most expenses and the Corporations, who the feds could tax are in a much better position to fight off Federal abuses and encroachment on the rights of the individual.

Had the amendments passed in 1913 failed to be ratified, NONE of the socialism, over taxation, regulation or anything else insane the feds do today would have happened. At least at the federal level, which is the point of this post.

The right of the individual person to define his own rights and have them protected by the Federal Government is the sole reason for the Federal Government to exist. That is the only mandate. Anything that gets in the way of an Individual's freedom, property, life and self defined happiness is wrong and against the constitution.

However, Nothing bars a state government from imposing welfare, insane taxation, regulation or anything else. The Feds are supposed to ensure no state gets out of control. BUT if each state was in fact operating under the original constitution of the United States in regards to taxation, welfare and other programs, then each state is an automatic check on all others.

The concept here is each state would pass laws that would be designed to provide whatever the people of that state desired. If for example, the people of New York want to continue to buy into the socialist utopia, then they are free to tax themselves to oblivion in the name of free healthcare, government handouts or whatever else they think a socialist utopia can provide. At the same time a different state, such as Texas, might have no socialism at all and instead have it be every man is free to earn all the money they want and take care of themselves and anyone they freely choose.

The people of America would then move to which ever of the 50 states provided the best combinations of freedom, social programs, healthcare, regulation or whatever. The check or protection is each state could not get too out of control for fear of losing population. The bottom line is any individual would have 50 different choices to move to and live in the type of state that best suits the individual.

With the Federal Government controlling everything and imposing its undesired will on all, we have no choice. All 50 states are in effect the same. The slight differences in taxation or services is just that slight and not really enough to make much of a difference. Really, the 5% income tax in Illinois, compared to Zero in Texas or 10% in California. Who cares, the Feds are taking at a minimum 15% from everyone working in Payroll(no the employer part is in fact yours, FDR made this an illusion) for anyone who hits the lowest tax bracket, you are now at 25% and it goes up. So 5% differences at the state level mean very little.

Remember, Madison was against all of this tyrannical behavior. He knew then that the people individually would never have the ability to fight of an over reaching federal government. The Corporations and States do have the ability to defend the people from the Federal Government. As of 1913, the Feds are enjoying unchecked power and it will never change as long as they can directly take your property with impunity.

All states are in effect the same and have no ability to stop the Federal Government. The only real option an American has is to leave America entirely for any country that does not tax the hell out of productive members of the society. Since this is not really a good option, lets propose eliminating the 16th and 17th amendments, so we can again have states that are a check on the Federal Government. States free and able to tax whatever they feel their people want to pay for and compete against each other for population to ensure no state is over doing anything. Relegating the Feds back to their mandate of ensuring standardized commerce, justice, security, foreign policy and protecting the Individual rights of the people. Sure the Feds have a few more useful responsibilities but none of them would include education, welfare, housing, what toilet I can buy or even how much money I can carry around in my pocket.

How is it right for people who live off of welfare to be granted the authority over those who earn that money?

I am starting to see why the original constitution only affirmed voting rights to land owners. Not for any reason other than the insanity it is to let people who would live off welfare be granted a majority vote to allow them to steal their welfare money from the people who earned that money or prevent politicians from stealing wealth from producers to purchase the votes from recipients of the pillaging. Both conditions are what we have today.

Whatever happened to the right to your own freedom and life? When did the unalienable rights of free people get taken away by those unwilling to exercise their own freedom to live?

Forced Unionism - the Debate between right to work laws that prevent unions from forcing people to join

It is shocking there is a debate about freedom vs a group declaring itself a union being able to force anyone to join or even be affected by their existence.

The Declaration of Independence affirmed all men because of they exist have the right to life, liberty and pursuing happiness. Freedom is the most basic of natural rights affirmed and protected by the constitution. There should not have to be Right to Work laws to prevent unions from forced membership because the unions should not be able to force anyone to join them. In fact, the unions should not be able to compel an individual to acknowledge them or to vote for or against them. The right to work is inherent in the freedom declared in the Declaration of Independence.

The validity of the unions is questioned when it has to use force to compel membership, threaten your employment if you do not comply with their demands and force these same victims to pay for it all. How is this different from any past or present theocracy that used force to compel membership in the religion. It has long been established that forcing an individual into a group, religion or tribe is a crime and the fact that Unions must use force to compel membership and compliance shows the union is in fact a fallacy.

If a Union is legitimate it should be able to inspire membership through providing members with some kind of benefit the members feel is important or useful enough to pay for. Using force of government and threats of financial impact or even physical threats is nothing more than thugs using law to steal money and force victims to continue paying for it.

A free individual has the right to work, has the right to collectively bargain and has the right to bargain with his employer on his own. Anything that takes away a citizens right to freedom is illegal and against the freedom this country was founded on.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/wisconsin-union-battle-set-stage-national-right-work-debate/

The Government has no rights in the US Constitution

There are no rights in the Constitution for any person or entity. The people have unalienable rights that exist as soon as the individual exists, no government grants rights nor can a government remove them. Unalienable rights can't be taken or removed by any means. A person can't sign them away, give them up, nor can a group of people vote them away. God can't remove them any more than judgments from a supreme court. The individual defines what they are and no method exists to change rights into privileges to allow the Government to take it away.

The US Federal Government has no rights at all. It has only obligations to defend the country, set up a means to resolve disputes and crimes, standardize certain aspects of commerce to facilitate the economy and above all protect the rights of each individual.

No where in the Constitution does it declare a set of rights to the government. It has no RIGHT to your money, it has no right to tell you how to live, it has no right to dictate what you do with your life or your progeny.

Today and for the last 100 years, the US Federal Government has assumed rights to itself at the expense of individual rights. Such as the "right" to tax the people directly, the "right" to dictate to states regulations like speed limits, environmental regulation of the people directly and the right to know anything and everything an individual does in life.

The fact is the individual should be able to exist in America and have no interaction at all with the federal government beyond voting, juries and a census.

America will recover and prosper as soon as we can reestablish individual and state rights and remove the false rights of the Federal Government.

The Original Fair Tax is still fair

The original constitution had a fair tax before the progressive liberals changed it.

The Federal Government was explicitly barred from direct taxation of the people. They could only tax commerce and states with apportionment. This was done on purpose. Madison argued this was one of the two protections in the constitution to prevent the Federal Government from becoming a tyranny or some entity that governs by decree without any concern at all for the people.

The reason Madison considered this a protection is because it takes money to have a tyranny. There would be no way for the Feds to steal enough money to become a tyranny, With the State governments in between the people and the Feds. The Progressives removed this just before 1920 and 90 years later we now have a Federal Government feared by Patrick Henry.

So what is a fair tax? Simple, no tax at all from the federal level. Go back to the original tax code mentioned in the Constitution which specifically says the feds must effectively send a bill to the states and leave it up to each state on how to pay it. There is also argument supporting corporate taxation. Both are safer because it places at the hands of the people the power of state governments and big business to keep the Federal Spending in check.

There is no way the President or Congress could deficit spend, ear mark spend or spend to the levels of today, if state governments were there to tell the feds to take a hike, every time they attempt to get out of control.

Corporate taxes work because any of the larger companies have the resources to battle Uncle Sam to keep those taxes low.

With the current tax system, the Feds are able to do what is done today, class warfare between income levels, bypass state governments with spending and no individual person is able to stop the government from doing whatever it wants with each individuals money.

There was a reason the Founding Fathers barred the Federal Government from most Tax sources, perhaps we should consider these reasons and protect ourselves by putting this protection back in force.

US Budget 3.7 Trillion and growing - America how much do you plan to let those parasites confiscate from you?

The White House released a budget estimate today for 3.7 Trillion USD.
At no point does the President or any other politician give any indication they plan to stop this unsustainable spending binge they have been on for years.

Calls for a balanced budget are pointless because all these calls demand a balanced budget primarily through increasing taxes to confiscate as much of the fruits of the labor of American citizens.

How about demands the budget become balanced by the Politicians being forced to spend less than what they take in revenue. Simply removing political corruption and waste from incompetence could potentially achieve a 50% reduction in spending and fit withing the amount of revenue forcibly taken each year.

Is it really such a complex concept to force politicians to spend as a normal person would, not waste our money and actually spend significantly less?

Muslim tyrants fall

Events in Tunisia and Egypt with currently occurring protests in Algeria, Bahrain and Yemen to remove Muslim Tyrants all show the failure of the UN and progressive liberal policies of moral equivalency as justification to form any kind of diplomatic relationship with tyrants.

The Policy of the progressive liberal in dealing with tyrants began in the 1930s with the League of Nations and the US as a policy of just letting tyrants do whatever atrocity they committed under the guise of internal politics. While Germany, Italy and Japan spent most of the 1930s, invading and occupying countries like Czech, Ethiopia and Korea the US and League under Neville Chamberlain simply believed these leaders like Hitler were benign people that just need to be understood and negotiated with while they are occupying nations and killing people.

This policy transferred to the UN, this concept that all nations are equal in the UN regardless of the fact that many are tyrannies run by thugs and in many cases have religious leaders bent on killing every other person on the planet.

The UN and US support these tyrants if they leave American interests alone. Past examples are US support of the Saddam to combat Iran, Mubarak, Saudi royals and others. The UN "peace keeping" efforts merely result in stalemates and refugee camps with occasional rape gangs as seen in Africa.

The UN is incapable of choosing the side of right and peace. Actions and places such as the occupation attempt of east Timor, North Korea (a UN stalemate), Iran, Syria, Venezuela and many other countries are in no way operating under any kind of natural right or with consent of the people. The UN should be banning these countries from world commerce not negotiating with them. Mubarak should never existed, Iranian Ayatollahs should never have been in power just as Hitler should and could have been stopped years before he invaded Poland.

The results are seen today. After years of these UN supported tyrannies oppressing their people, the people are finally rising up and throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. The UN and member nations can't even understand what is happening. To the UN, the people are just irrelevant plebeians who have no say, no individual rights or even any direct involvement in the world.

The UN either needs to acknowledge the fact that all countries are not equal. Some Tyrants are in fact Tyrants and they are not legitimate just because their thugs confiscated some geographic space and enslaved the population.

It is time to end the UN sponsored "peace" where civil wars, genocide, tyranny, rape and violence endures for decades with UN refugee camps and UN peace keeping forces ensure the status quo.

Cold in Florida and LA and it is more Proof of Human Caused Global Warming?

You environmentalist morons would be amusing if you were not costing the world billions in unnecessary costs and regulation. The facts are there is no HUMAN caused global warming. Your religion was debunked and proven to be based on falsified information and so called computer models that are skewed to "prove" humans are causing global warming.

The facts are CO2 has gone up AFTER the rise in temperature, just as it has for every warming period between ice ages going back a billion years.

Myths of your ideology are there is no actual reason to accept some kind of "global" temperature or its meaning. WE humans do not know enough about the atmosphere to even guess what is happening and less than 100 years of temperature data from parts of America, Europe and a few other locations amounting to less than 1000th of a percent of all temperature on land, sea and in the air we would need to take to even begin to understand the biosphere we live in.

The facts are you human caused warmists have chosen a nonexistent problem to to demonize and given it a cause called CO2 which conveniently can't be measured, we dont know what actually can be in the atmosphere and it will always be there as long as life exists. In effect a cause you can always state is still a cause and never have to worry about a solution.

With a final problem with your religion. We cant falsify your claims, as long as every atmospheric phenomenon, earthquake and bird dropping is always a justification to claim global warming is a problem and is human caused. With everything that happens "proof" and no condition exists to falsify it, you people are just spouting a belief and ideology with no science to back it up.

I suppose you morons will claim global warming is proven again when it is HOT in LA, a hurricane occurs in the atlantic, a volcano erupts on the sea floor, the caribou choose a migration path 30 ft north of last year past a fallen pine tree, the tarot cards come out in numeric order, hell freezes over, god smites the planet and the Obamanation continues another 4 years.