Imagine for a moment that a dear friend, or a loved one, gave you a valuable gift, then later someone attempted to steal that gift from you. How would you react? Would you just let them have it, or would you not let them take it from you without some sort of fight? Worse, what if that person, or group of people, who were trying to steal that gift were friends, or people upon whom you thought you could trust to protect your gift?

Your rights, your liberty, is such a gift. It is yours by your very nature of being a human being. I know that there are certain readers of mine who deny the existence of God, therefore I won’t mention that our rights are a gift from Him.

However, in the Rights of British America, Thomas Jefferson said, “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” I honestly believe that some people think that their rights are something their government, in generosity, grants to them, and therefore is capable of rescinding at anytime.

That is not the case. What if you had been born in the wild, in a place were there was no form of government or law? Would that mean you had no rights because there was no one there in a position of authority to grant them to you?

Ridiculous! Therefore, your rights cannot be taken from you by any man, or institution of men, unless you personally sacrifice them. However, if you choose to surrender your rights, you cannot ask, nor demand, that others do likewise.

That would be like me, since I do not watch sporting events on television, asking, no, DEMANDING, that every American stop watching sports. I have no right to do that, nor does any other American, or their elected representative, demand that I give up any of my rights.

Some people claim that to maintain order, and to protect others, certain laws can be passed which limit, or restrict our rights. Again, not so! Once again quoting Jefferson, “The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.”

In a society, one can fully exercise their rights as long as in so doing, they do not hinder anyone else from doing the same. Or, as Jefferson said, “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

I have no more right to demand that you stop doing something just because I don’t like it than you have the right to demand that I stop doing something just because you don’t like it.

I have no more right to hire someone to force you to stop doing that thing which I dislike than you do to hire someone to force me to stop doing something you don’t like. But, by asking that our elected officials pass laws which infringe upon the rights of citizens, whose actions have harmed nobody, that is exactly what you have done.

Think back to when you were in school and someone did something wrong. When the teacher said that unless the guilty person came forth and confessed, the whole class would be punished. Didn’t that piss you off, that you were being punished due to the actions of someone else? That is EXACTLY how I feel when my rights are violated because of the actions of someone else.

James Madison once said that, “The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.” Did you get that? Madison said that government was instituted to protect our rights, not infringe upon them! It does not say that government was instituted to grant, and take away, rights as they see fit. As mentioned earlier, our rights are ours from birth, it is the purpose of government to ENSURE that no one infringes upon them, even the government itself.

Our Bill of Rights lists ten of the rights that our founders agreed were of such importance that they be individually listed. However, they are not the ONLY rights we have.

As Madison stated in a speech he gave proposing the Bill of Rights, “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against.”

So basically, just because a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean that you have surrendered it to the government. Think about it, does the Bill of Rights guarantee you the right to sit on your couch and drink beer while watching TV? No, but I am pretty sure that you feel that it is your right to do so.

The reason I am harping on rights again is because of a couple things I became aware of over the course of the past week.

First is because of a story about a woman in Grand Rapids Michigan who has had a civil rights complaint filed against her for, and get this, posting an ad looking for a Christian roommate.

I understand that an employer may not discriminate against someone due to their religious beliefs, sexual preferences, race, and a whole slew of other criteria. But to say that a person cannot seek someone to live with who shares the same beliefs that they do, it is taking this whole civil rights BS too far.

I wonder how these same people who support this kind of nonsense had a spare bedroom in their house for rent, and they had a civil rights complaint filed against them because they would not let a pedophile live in the same home with their children?

This person never discriminated against anyone. All they did was seek out a person who shared the same beliefs as they did. It is no different than those who go to those match-making websites such as E-Harmony and Match.com where a person seeks out people with similar interests. If you can seek out a partner based on shared beliefs, then for cryin’ out loud why can’t you seek out a roommate using the same guidelines? Or am I just unreasonable and insensitive?

Next on the list is a story about a pilot for Express Jet who refused to pass through the TSA’s new full body scanner, or be patted down by TSA agents prior to entering the secure area at the Memphis airport.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one of those Amendments which our founders felt were important enough to be specifically listed, states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Did you notice it said “The rights of the people to be secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches…” This guy is a pilot, who has been going to work at this airport for 15 years, and now because of more stringent rules he has his rights violated because he MAY be a terrorist threat?

If we are that fearful of terrorist threats, why don’t we install these devices at the entrances of all government buildings? Why don’t we make cops, judges, state assembly members, governors, U.S. Congressman, and yes, even the president of the United States, pass through a full body scanner which basically is a virtual strip search?

I mean, fair is fair isn’t it? If the public are to have their Fourth Amendment rights violated, then let’s start violating the rights of those who pass these idiotic rules!

I know that people are fearful of terrorism, but our founders realized that the threat of danger from others was a powerful tool to further infringe upon the rights of the people. In fact, James Madison CLEARLY stated, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

I understand that public safety is a concern, especially in this age when the potential threat of terrorist attacks exists, but when do we draw the line as to how far we will allow our rights to be violated, when they start doing full rectal exams of all passengers boarding airplanes? If you ask me, I think they ought to do that to our lawmakers, maybe they will find their brains.

Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After all, we are so concerned with preventing terrorists from boarding airplanes, why aren’t we focusing on preventing them from getting into our country in the first place? Think about it, if the concern for public safety is such a big concern why haven’t they stopped granting visas to anyone from a country which harbors terrorists? Why haven’t they sealed a border that leaks like a sieve? Instead they pass more and more regulations which violate the rights of everyday citizens like you and I.

Doesn’t that make you question the true intent of all these infringements our your rights? Or are you perfectly fine with them?

Last, but not least, is HR 4646, a bill which was introduced by Rep. Chaka Fattah, [D PA], named the Debt Free America Act. You are going to love this one! According to Thomas.gov, the Library of Congress’s webpage where bills can be tracked, “States as purposes of this Act the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax.”

It is basically a transaction tax upon all financial transactions you make. To further quote Thomas.gov, “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 1% fee, offset by a corresponding nonrefundable income tax credit, on transactions that use a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. Defines “transaction” to include retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions.”

Now that may sound all well and good on the surface, a flat tax on all financial transactions, while at the same time doing away with the phasing out of the income tax.

According to section 6 of this bill, the phasing out of the income tax will not being until 2017. :

So, in the mean time you will still be paying taxes, and this transaction tax. Still sound like such a great idea? Basically what they are doing, is trying to squeeze you harder for more revenue to satisfy their uncontrolled spending. There is no mention in this bill of reigning in government spending, only in reducing, or eliminating the debt.

Let me ask you, if you had a credit card you wanted to pay off, would you continue charging things on it while at the same time trying to pay off the outstanding balance? I didn’t think so. So do you honestly think our government is going to be able to reduce, or eliminate the debt while still spending way beyond their means?

And think about this, for every transaction you make, you will be charged this fee. So, when you write a check to pay your electric bill, or if you pay online, you will be charge 1% of the cost of your bill as a tax. Pay your car insurance, another 1%. Transfer funds from savings to checking, boom, 1%. If you swipe your ATM at Wal Mart, 1%. If your check is automatically wired into your account, 1% of your pay automatically goes to the government.

Can you imagine how fast that 1% can add up? Can you picture how hard it will become to manage your money when you have to figure out one percent for every transaction you make?

The reason I added this bill last is because it is because our government is spending beyond its means TO FUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF YOUR LIBERTY. If the federal government would limit itself to the powers granted it by the Constitution and get back to the business of protecting your rights, then they wouldn’t be so damn bankrupt that they would have to impose these new taxes in the first place.

We, the American people, have allowed the wishes of society, and our government, in its lust for power and control, to violate the terms of their compact with us, and violate our rights. Due to our apathy and our ignorance, we have lost sight of just how important these rights are. Think about it, if you are not free, what are you? You are either a slave, or a prisoner. Think about that, would you?

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal