bareablog.com

“We hold these rights to be self-evident”

Simple words.

Eloquent, and influential, but not legally enforceable.

What the founders did was create a legal document to enforce the ability to achieve those rights.

The right to life.

The right to liberty.

The right to the pursuit of property.

The Constitution was established to provide checks on state and national governments to make sure these rights were respected.

In more than one way the Constitution is intended to restrict government from acting against those interests.

The first amendments protection of free speech was not, despite what the modern radical left would have you believe, designed to keep you from getting fired from a job. You have no constitutionally protected right to call your boss a douchebag.

You can call any United States Senator a douchebag, however. I suggest doing it often and, dare I pun, liberally.

The concept of rights has been smeared and disfigured by liberal pundits to include privileges.

The difference between right and privilege?

You have the right to own a car. You can save up for it, buy it. Have it towed to your farm. You can even drive it around on property you own.

The ability to drive it on public roads is a privilege.

That is why you apply for driver’s licenses, register it, get annual inspections, and get insurance

None of those chores is required to buy a car.

There is no 54th Amendment enshrining the right to drive a horse and buggy on public lands.

There’s also no right to work for Apple Computer.

You can apply for work at any company you want. The Constitution (for the educationally challenged - when an Amendment is passed it alters the original document becoming part of it.)

The Constitution restricts government from discriminating on the basis of race. That is the right

The Civil Rights Act establishes a privilege to be free from discrimination by company’s that fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Case law effectively extends that to 99% of the private sector.

The Constitution restricts government from discriminating on the basis of sex. That two men, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the same privileges as a man and a woman. That is the right.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would establish privilege’s, not rights.

While the public debate has been front loaded with slogans about pro-fags or anti-fags (This not a P.C. blog, for the new readers), the true conservative position doesn’t care about a persons bedroom antics.

Opposition to these kinds of privileges extends to the opposition to activist judges who warped and twisted the Interstate Commerce Clause during the great socialist experiment in American history.

See, used to be a 20 acre farm in Midland, Texas that exclusively sold their products from a stand in front of their house was considered a local business solely under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas. No national issues were involved and therefore no national regulations had to be observed. The product was grown and sold intrastate.

Among other reasons for the power grab, the building of the Interstate Highway System in front of that farm miraculously made that farm covered under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

There are a number of tortured majority opinions, but basically since the customers could include long distance travelers it became effectively a part of interstate commerce.

There’s a famous court case you can find on your own (god, most readers are lazy) that involved a restaurant with the same fact base.

Anyway, the true conservative opposition to E.N.D.A. is that the government is interfering with the right of the owner(s) to pursue property and success in order to establish a socialist privilege.

In the conservative mind, rights trump privileges.

There’s something odorous about government regulations that take from you to give to someone else.

You will see themes in that from opposition to the Internal Revenue Service, social welfare programs to forcing educational curriculum mandates.

No, not all who call themselves conservative are opposed to E.N.D.A. because of the whole poo on the penis thing.

Not all who call themselves liberals support E.N.D.A. do so because they want to protect sexual orientation. They are simply socialists that believe in governmental control of capitalist pigs who should share more of the wealth with the people who sit at home and watch soap operas.

It’s about money to them, plain and simple.

Personally, I’d let the market determine whether they want to spread the privilege or not.

If Dell Computers wants to have a workforce of white, straight, men - let them.

The market can then decide in true liberty (ah! those pesky rights) whether they will buy from them. Malcolm X had the right idea.

You agree with Malcolm X don’t you - speaking to the radical left.

Work for a company that actively wants your contribution. Buy products from companies that actively market to you and treat you as a valuable human being, regardless of your subset.

Let the racists have their own companies.

Let the sexists have their own companies.

Defeat them in the open marketplace with superior skill - not from a government privilege.

The more laws the national and state governments pass that intrude on one persons right to give privileges to another, the less free this country is.

Yeah… arrests without due process.

We need to dismantle all of these privileges that provide no rational governmental objective in protecting our Constitutionally mandated rights. Protect us from government.

End All the Handouts Already.

E.A.T.H.A.!!!!

Or, as Howard Dean once put it, EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAATHHHHAAAAAAA!!!

So I stand firmly, courageously, and unapologetically against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it discriminates against freedom.

Recently:

• Place related post plugin php here...
• - Post 1
• - Post 2
• - Post 3
• - Post 4
• - Post 5
• - Post 6