The Wisdom of Jefferson

This quote from Jefferson is directly related to the previous blog entry. What Washington has done vindicates the sage of Montecello a thousand times over.

“The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

Thomas Jefferson

The failure of central planning

Read it and weep folks.

Go to the site below to see what the Fed Reserve has done to our $$ since its' creation in 1913. (Keep in mind that from 1813 to 1913 prices did not go up –– like we expect every year––because there was no Fed incompetently setting interest rates as if they could predict and dictate human action, all the while confiscating untold billions in interest from the $$ they issue to We the People in the form of debt by the permission of the treasonous Congress.)

Prices went down between 1813 and 1913 because without the Fed the US $ appreciated. This little site that shows the almost systematic decline of the value of the US $$ is a testimony to the failure of central planning. OBAMA, are you listening you collectivist SoB!

I guess after Obama we'll be speaking of Presidential stature with the caveat of Affirmative Action standards.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Michael's Story: the logic of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Michael runs a restaurant. Michael is a pro-life Catholic who has been very active in the pro-life movement. He makes a good living, loves what he does and has become very successful in his neighborhood. Michael decides he's going to no longer be silent about the holocaust that is going on, and posts pro-life signs and puts pro-life literature, displaying them clearly and
prominently in his establishment.
Many customers tell Michael they are behind him, some give him a few unfriendly looks but say nothing. Business remains largely unchanged, except for a new crowd that begins to come in daily. They seem friendly, well educated and pleasant. It's always good to have new customers, Michael thinks.
This goes on for a few weeks, and when he is leaving one evening he notices the building down the street is still open despite the late hour. He then remembered that building was closed down and abandoned in 2006 as part of the economic downturn. Odd, he thinks. There must be a new company that has moved in. So, he gets in his car and drives down to see what's going on. To his shock he finds an abortion center has opened up and he can see young girls entering and leaving the building even though it is past 9 pm. What's worse he sees Planned Parenthood has moved in just across the street in the old mom and pop hardware store that closed last year.
The next day, in the middle of lunch time rush he makes the connection: the new crowd that has been coming in are workers in both these groups--They're on lunch break from destroying nascent human life and making money from contraception and advising young girls to destroy their babies.
Michael is sickened---and here is he with a plate of roast beef and potatoes in his hand to serve to the man who appears to be the head of the clinic.
He feels horrible. He is feeding killers---but it's legal. He notices they see the anti-abortion material but no one says anything.
The following days Michael goes to work, but he's just going through the motions. The joy he once had is gone. All he can think about is that he is feeding murderers. The money they give him is blood money. He has trouble sleeping and become sullen and withdrawn at home. The customers notice the change in him and in the once friendly, homey atmosphere of the restaurant.

To make matters worse, at the end of the week two people, a man and a woman, very well dressed and looking very official, come to the check out counter and ask to speak to the owner. Michael comes forward and they ask if they can speak privately. He leads them to his little office and asks them to sit down.
They refuse and remain standing. The smartly dressed young lady smiles politely and hands him a document. It says the government has received many complaints from patrons about the offensive nature of the literature Michael is displaying, literature that speaks against an act that is legal and protected by the Constitution.

They make him aware of a law forbidding private business owners from placing "controversial" literature in their establishments. They point out the penalty for doing so is a huge fine and even incarceration upon repeat offenses.

Michael is furious. He says it's HIS restaurant! He built it. He's a tax payer! Has he no rights?
Yes, they say. You have rights--but not in your business. Take the stuff away...or else. With that they walk out.
Angrily, Michael removes the literature.
The next day the abortion crew comes in and some of them glance at the spots where the pro-life literature had been on display. They nod among each other with approving glances and snigger and laugh.
Their laughter continues and their talk gets louder. Finally, one in the group orders special drinks. When the drinks arrive he stands and proposes a toast to the owner of the abortion clinic and wishes him a great two week Hawaiian vacation he and his family are about to take. Next, a young woman proposes a toast to the clinic, the success of which is paying for that vacation. Finally, they call Michael over and toast him, and thank him for such great food and tell him how glad they are that such a great restaurant is near by their work.
Michael is speechless. He wishes he could disappear, standing in the restaurant he once loved he wishes he were anywhere but there. He feels like he is dying inside.
Suddenly, he loses it. He bursts out screaming in a barely controlled rage, calling them parasites and murderers. He pushes one man over in his chair and then tries to turn the table over.
Everyone scatters.
Get out, Michael screams, Get out! He can feel his face turning red and his veins bulging out from his forehead and neck. Shaking his fists at them he yells, I don't serve murderers–––killers. Get out!

Two men begin to aggressively move toward Michael but the boss calls them off. The abortion/planned parenthood crew stand shocked in the hostile atmosphere of the restaurant. Michael too is in shock. He notices several other customers get up and begin leaving. Even some supportive of the pro-life position leave because they did not come there to see a violent confrontation but just to have a quiet lunch.
Michael sits with his head in his hands at a table for a long time. He looks up to see only a handful of customers still sitting at tables and the ceiling fans slowing turning.
Michael returns home, and though he is exhausted he sleeps only little, tossing and turning. The next morning he drags himself to work.
Waiting for him at the restaurant door is a policemen and the government man and woman with him.
Michael learns he is guilty of breaking local and federal law, both rooted in the 1964 civil rights law or extensions of it. He learns his restaurant is in danger of getting shut down and he is in danger of going to prison.
Michael is crushed...then becomes furious. He decides he'll fight and does. He hires the best lawyer he can. But when he gets to court he finds that every liberal fascist group there is has poured tons of money into PR, the press, TV broadcasts and the best lawyers in the country. The whole thing is getting national attention.

Michael appears on the O'Reilly factor, but the employees of the abortion clinic exaggerate Michael's outburst in the restaurant. O'Reilly shows a segment of video one of the women took during Michael's outburst in the restaurant. This causes Michael to show his temper and he looks like a hot head to O'Reilly's national audience.

The next day the press paints Michael as a hater, compares him to fanatics who murder abortion doctors. They even drag up and distort events in his past to make him look like a person with deep seated emotion and psychological problems. It seems the local paper found some very old court records where Michael was accused of domestic violence in his first marriage. The press fails to mention that his ex-wife had lied about the violence just to harass him and the charges were dropped and not brought to trial.

Public opinion goes against him.

His outburst in the restaurant is further exaggerated by the press, the video the abortion worker secretly took in the restaurant is showed over and over again on both local and national news, and he is branded as potentially violent---the press insinuates he may even be armed, even though he has never owned a gun. The abortion clinic makes a show of it, hiring armed guards as protection against a possible violent attack by Michael. Clinic workers are interviewed on the local news about how they fear Michael and remember his violent outburst. One woman breaks down crying as she recounts the event.

Michael closes his restaurant and soon exhausts in legal fees what little he has been able to save from the time his restaurant was successful.

Various liberal groups now routinely picket his home, shouting insults and name calling.

In Court Michael tries to argue that there is a great moral difference in not serving someone because of their race and not serving someone because they are a killer. He says those who passed the civil rights act in 1964 has no idea that abortion would ever be legal let alone be conflated with the right of citizens of all races to be served in restaurants.

The state counters that Michael can't know the minds of the legislators in 1964 and what he calls murder out of religious bias the state calls a woman's civil right and protects as legal. As for his "moral" argument, it makes no sense in a court of civil law. The court must keep church and state separate. His moral view is just his subjective bias based upon religious prejudice and of no legal weight. The judge agrees. He loses.

The very next day after the decision several of the abortion and Planned Parenthood employees sue Michael. A week later he is indicted by a grand jury and arrested. He uses the little money he has left to cover his bail.

He loses his house.
Broke, Michael finds life in the town he once loved unbearable. He loses most of his friends. His wife, who is a doctor, has no income because she has been forbidden from practicing, It seem an extension of the 1964 law now requires doctors to not only recommend but even participate in abortion on demand. This is because a recent court decision using the 1964 Civil Rights law concerning private businesses as precedent. The court concluded that no person can bring their private religious and moral views into their jobs, whether it be their private practice or as an employee of a hospital. Abortion, is after all, the law of the land and an approved medical procedure and it must, therefore, be performed on demand--or else.
There is no room for private views, religious or otherwise, in public businesses and services, so the same law that forces the racially biased individual to serve people of all races, religions and cultures in his business, also forces people who hold personal religious views to set them aside and perform what the government has determined to be lawful procedures. The court says at home one can do whatever he or she chooses–––for now. But in public one cannot choose according to his or her personal biases or refuse to act due to issues of personal conscience. If you refuse you have the state to deal with.

Subsequently, Michael is convicted on several counts of battery and the breaking of three different civil rights laws and is sentenced to prison. He appeals the decision but the higher court refuses to hear it. With luck Michael will be out in 2015.

Welcome to the logical conclusion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act––welcome to Facist America!

Constitutional Heresy

Heresy comes from a Greek word that, roughly translated, means "choice," or "selection." Heretic, those who practice heresy, is a term the Church used for those who accepted part of the teaching of the Apostles while denying other, equally essential parts.

Instances of heresy arise when one is faced with two seemingly contradictory, or conflicting doctrines and chooses to embrace one while rejecting the other.

For instance, faced with the seeming logical contradiction between fate and human free will, one denies free will and insists everything is predetermined, fated and freedom is an illusion.

The common human experience of the mystery of paradox is not limited to religious doctrine and theology. It permeates virtually every aspect of human experience and existence, including civil, social and political theory. One sees it even in physics.

Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee, has come under fire for trying to escape the Constitutional heresy that has gone viral for decades now in the increasingly toxic atmosphere of political correctness. For his candor he has been accused by some of racism (ho-hum). Specifically, he is attacked because he disagrees with one of the nine points of the civil rights legislation passed in the 60s.

He makes the following statements:

1. He, personally, is against institutional racism or racism in any form and says government funds should never be used to support institutions, businesses or associations that promote or practice discrimination in their hiring or service for reasons of race, culture or sexual preference.

2. At the same time, he questions the right of government to force a private business or association to serve, hire or associate with anyone they choose not to.

3. He says without any government legislation this sort of behavior will be very limited because of public reaction. Simply put, few people would give stores and companies run by bigots any business at all. As a consequence, businesses would either end their practice of discrimination or simply go bankrupt.

What is Paul doing? He is trying to throw out the dirty bathwater of racism and unjust discrimination without throwing out the baby of American Liberty.

In debating this issue with Jon Stossel this morning on FOX news Meagan Kelly began one of her points by saying, "Say you walked into a restaurant..."

Whoa, I say. You can just depersonalize it like that. That avoids the elephant in the room: the individual.

You're not just walking into a restaurant, you are walking into someone's restaurant.

That "someone" may have labored for years to be able to open that restaurant. Did the government labor and sacrifice to purchase even one napkin on the restaurant's table? Did the government take the risk of becoming self-employed, mortgage a home or put relatives at risk who loaned the family entrepreneur money? Did anyone in the government look with concern about what would become of the novice restauranteur's children as they slept at night? Did anyone in the government labor seventy hours a week, week after week, giving up vacations, benefits, often sacrificing his own salary to make payroll?

NO!

Yet, the government wants to not only increase the risk that the restaurant owner will fail by increasingly unjust taxation, it wants to add insult to injury by dictating whom the restaurant owner must serve and hire.

He has done the labor, he has made the sacrifices, he has taken the risks, yet he is not free to make the choices he prefers while larger and larger amounts of his profits are confiscated from him by the same ones who are dictating his hiring policies---policies that must be obeyed under threat of law suits and even imprisonment.

Those in political power are practicing Constitutional heresy in order to hang on to power. They seek to make political hay by being shown to be heros of racial and sexual equality, even if it means doing all they can to destroy the liberty of individuals, preventing them from running the businesses they own as they see fit.

It is a horrible precedent.

It is reasonable to say a government which must serve all without bias cannot use tax dollars to promote discrimination against individuals or groups. ( I hasten to point out government has never done that anywhere but on paper).

But it is unreasonable to lay those same restrictions and requirements on the individual citizen who alone has labored and sacrificed for what he owns.

When the government places restrictions on what an owner can do with his property or business the government, in effect, is saying, you don't really have any private property or ownership.

The heretic who embraces the doctrine of equality over and against liberty must, de facto, deny true ownership and the citizens right to private property.

Ownership means you have power over your property. You can choose what to do with it. If others can come in and dictate policy their exercise of control, implicitly, is saying you are not the real owner, they are. In fact, you are even owned by them. You not only own nothing, your liberty is also an illusion.

You are a slave, but your masters simply choose not to remind you of it by placing chains on you that can be seen.

Heresy throws everything out of balance and proportion. In our age the heresiarchs have used equality like a crowbar to dismantle every thing else in the American Constitution and every thing unique in American life, including that unique American treasure, liberty.

Liberty rooted in Charity should be at the heart of every aspect of American life and law. When liberty is driven out and replaced with the ugliness of Government legislated mandates and police state enforcement tactics charity departs. Rather than resulting in true brotherhood, trust and good will, such tactics increase hatred, resentment and malice between groups, as our present society proves after almost two generations of Government Gestapo tactics being used to enforce equality in virtually every aspect of American social and political life.

Ironically, the one place equality does properly belong, equality before the law, is the one place equality is becoming increasingly scarce.

No, no matter what Al Sharpton might say, race does not determine "justice"––money does. If the O.J.Simpson trial proved nothing else it proved that. If you're rich you get a very different form of justice than if you're poor or even of modest means. Justice in America is only for the few, for only the few can afford it.

Government unconstitutional legislation and ruthless enforcement has all but destroyed the possibility of charity, brotherhood and cooperation among groups in America. Hatred, poverty, irreligion, perverse values, destruction of the family and suspicion have increased with the intrusive actions of government. But government agencies are not the only ones driving the issues and poisoning the waters of social cooperation and good will. They have lots of non-government help that is gladly using the power of government for their own advantage.

The race and class warfare pimps and demagogues who profit from these issues use every opportunity to increase their personal power bases, regardless of the social outcome for either those they claim to defend or those they oppose.

They either do not see or do not care that the corrupt means of government policy they both use and promote for their advantage can and will also be used to their disadvantage at another time.

In contrast to these race and class hucksters, more and more Americans, including Dr. Paul, do know and care that every time we increase the power of government we decrease our own liberty and move ever closer to slavery and a servile existence in which an all-powerful, all-controlling government micromanages every part of our lives.

Dr. Paul knows with the rest of us how often liberty has been sacrificed on the altar of the modern mania of unrestricted enforcement of equality in every nook and cranny of the lives of private citizens.

Sadly, the Constitutional heretics who have nothing but contempt for individual liberty and an obsession with the exercise of control and coercion over others have long ago seized the reigns of power. They sit in the high seats of honor. And whenever their doctrine is challenged they howl like rabid wolves and their hit squads are sent to the four winds of modern media to spread the cry of racism across the lands.

How long will these wolves who devour liberty be able to cry racism to render the effect they desire: more and more power?

When will their cries be heralded for what they really are: the school yard bully tactics of avoiding substantive engagement on the real issues by going straight for the jugular and attempting to discredit the personal character of their opponents by name calling?

The answer to that question is blowing in the wind. Some progress has been made, but vast multitudes still remain in the deep trance-like sleep in which Government lies and miseducation has placed them. An ignorant, scarcely educated, semi-literate people, deprived of the tools of critical judgment and thought, is a people ripe for the sound-byte propaganda the enemies of truth and liberty sitting in the halls of political power have become so fond of.

And so it goes in present day America. The place that used to be the land of the free, the land of individualism, independence and liberty has a government ruled by demagogues and tyrants who that now brand a man who loves liberty and seeks to restore it a racist, and a man who seeks to exercise his liberty a criminal, all the while it honors and panders to those who use unconstitutional government race and class social engineering as a means of increasing their own wealth and power. Those few among them who really want to do good seem totally ignorant of the fact that ignoble means used to achieve noble goals can result in an increase of evil and injustice. Such are almost always the unintended consequences resulting from corrupt means. Present day America is exhibit A as proof of this truth.

The use of ruthless and inappropriate means of imposing equality in every aspect of American life has created greater social disharmony, disparity and factionalism than ever, to the point that the whole social fabric of America is in danger of rupturing.

Heresy always throws every thing out of balance and out of proportion. Heresy always causes great evil, not because of the essential thing it advocates, but because of the equally essential thing it denies or places out of order. Heresy always creates factionalism, hatred and suspicion. Heresy always drives out charity and restrains and suppresses liberty. Liberty suppressed results in a people abused and oppressed. Sooner or later, there is always a grave consequence for such sustained and widespread injustice.

Equality has wrongly been made the teleological raison d'etre of the American experiment and placed as the central purpose of every American law and the core intent of every American social action. Until we expose this heresy for what it is and restore Liberty to its proper and central role in American life there is little hope for what little remains of our once great and free Republic. Instead, the poisonous weed of tyranny will become permanently rooted in our lands and Liberty, utterly vanquished, will once again wander the earth like a beggar in search of a people who will give her a home. Already she is shod and her loins are gird for the journey.

It's time to give a big Texas thank you!

This morning Trey Grayson showed why he is going to lose to Rand Paul in his bid for another senate term in Kentucky: lying by half-truths, voting with one of the two big government parties for more big government and big spending and being an establishment toady. Here are the specifics.

First, he said he was not a Washington insider (lie) and didn't have a father who had been in Washington for 20 years (true). But, he doesn't mention that Dr. Ron Paul, Rand's father, has been the no. 1 outsider in Washington for that whole time---unlike Grayson, Paul has voted against his party's policies time and time again in support of the Constitution. Next, Grayson said Rand would be no where without outside money from non-Kentucky residents. True. Rand has gotten money from lots of Tea Party folks from Maine to California supporting him. But Grayson does not mention the flood of non-Kentucky money he has received from the RNC, as the establishment golden boy. Finally, he mentions how he is so concerned about the over-spending in Washington, but neglects to say that if frugality were religion his come to Jesus moment would be an only a recent event---if that. The fact is, Grayson, unlike Ron Paul, has voted the party line with almost no exceptions; just the kind of guy the RNC loves.

While this is stomach turning and of immediate concern Grayson's half truths and distortions are not the focus of our real concern here. What we want to do is send a big Texas thank you to the voters of the 14th district of Texas that have repeatedly voted for Dr. Paul and kept him in Washington fighting for liberty and standing up for the Constitution. While many districts and areas have voted for political good ol' boys and hucksters like the late John Murtha, boys that would "bring home the bacon" so we can "get ours," the Texas 14th district has opted to send a man to Washington with the courage to stand on principle and become virtually the lone defender of the Constitution and individual liberty in Congress.

While Dr. Paul deserves our undying thanks for his tenacity and fortitude, we would be remiss if we ignored the good people of the Texas 14th for continuing to choose him to represent the interests of all Americans.

Their combined fidelity is beginning to bear fruit after long years of being ignored, mocked, lied about and laughed at by the Country Club Republican phonies and pretenders that infest and infect the halls of Mordor on the Potomac.

In contrast, the policies of the two Big Government Parties are beginning to bear analogous albeit sorry fruit; fruit that is diseased and rotten on the vine. It is yielding nothing less than the Grapes of Wrath for Americans and may cause what the Southern Confederacy failed to cause a century and a half ago; the break up of the states into different and competing Republics.

If, indeed, it all comes to the dissolution of the American Empire, there will be no army that can cruelly invade and enslave a whole people to save it, for the division will no longer be merely regional, pitting northern materialism, banking and industrialism with southern agrarianism. Ironically, the divisions will be numerous and widespread in large part because of the growing cultural and racial diversity of the populace, which has been the consequence of the refusal of the Imperial Government in Washington to act to secure the borders. Washington's anti-citizen policies cannot help but eventually backfire and serve to play a great role in the Empire's dissolution, just as Rome's loss of control of their borders hastened that empire's collapse just over a millennia and a half ago.

This time the centre will not hold, for the centre has shown itself to be corrupt, dissolute and feckless and, systemically, beyond repair; a ship of state that can no longer remain afloat.

If the American Republic is to be saved from its present "on life support" status, it will be Dr. Ron Paul and those who stand with him and follow him who will be responsible for its healing and restoration.

When and if that day comes I hope the voters of the Texas 14th will not be forgotten---and I hope and believe the voters of my home state of Kentucky may receive similar accolades for having sent his son, Rand, to support and continue his father's devoted service to American Liberty.

The Armadillo is embracing Liberalism--you should too!

Prior to Arizona's new Immigration law I was pretty much on the side of the Conservatives. But now I'm seriously thinking of joining the protesters. The reason is, without knowing it, I have obviously been persecuted by the state of Texas and taken for a sucker by the Federal government. The protests in Arizona have made me painfully aware of how I've been discriminated against and unfairly treated. I don't see why I should not receive the same treatment illegals have been given. Let me share an example to explain what I mean.

In the past, if the police stopped me here in Texas, even for a tail light being out or a crack in my windshield, they expected ME to produce a valid driver's license and an up to date proof of insurance and proper documents pertaining to the car I'm driving.

What an outrage! But that's not all.

Even if my documents were in order and I was uncharacteristically cooperative and respectful, the officer always took my license and documentation, went back to his car, opened up the computer there, fed in my information and checked my entire background, seeing if I had any prior convictions, if I was wanted in Texas or any other state, if I owed money for unpaid traffic tickets, if I was in arrears on child support payments, or if I had warrants in other places---or anything else in my background that might give him an excuse to ticket me, perform a search on my person, or arrest me and confiscate my car––which I would have to pay a large amount of money to get back even if I was proven innocent or a victim of mistaken identity. And I would have virtually no legal recourse to recoup damages and expenses. After all, the officer is just doing his duty to keep the peace and make sure ALL the laws are enforced. My cost and inconvenience would just be the cost of maintaining a just, safe and free society.

To Hell with that. Now I know better. I see now, thanks to illegals bravely protesting, that the Government has been treating me and other citizens like we're drooling idiots that just fell off the turnip truck. NO MORE! This boy knows better now and he will no longer stay silent.

In the past I put up with it all because I believed it was the standard procedure everyone had to experience so the "public good" could be maintained. But apparently, what I and other citizens have been putting up with is not standard procedure. Nor is it for anyone's good except, perhaps, the government's. But there's good news dear citizens, all is not lost. There is a privileged class that doesn't have to bear up under these indignities and I want to be a part of them.

You should too!

Therefore, I'm throwing all my support behind the illegals protesting. But I'm not stopping there. I'm also thinking about revoking my citizenship so I can join them and have more liberty to carry on my business without the abuses of legal encroachments, demands for my identity, a full investigation into my past every time my left rear turn signal fails, or, get this, even paying income taxes.

What's more, I'm thinking about moving to California to join the beautiful people! I hear as an illegal there I can get free medical treatment, my children can go to college for free and I don't have to produce any documents regarding my finances or personal life in order to purchase a home.

How cool is that!

I only wish I'd thought of this earlier. I'm just writing this to you, my fellow citizen/victims, as a public service, in the hope you might follow the same path, take advantage of the liberties and services afforded illegals and join me grooving out on Huntington Beach. Let me know if you're coming and I'll see if I can pre-apply you for a marijuana medical card. Don't worry about paying for the "medication." You can get your "prescription" filled with money from government medical entitlement programs.

What fools we American Citizens have been working and saving when we could have all the stuff we need for free. All we need to do is just revoke our citizenship! It's just that easy.

What could we have been thinking?!?

Talking Nonsense and Gibberish

On Neil Cavuto's Your World today Imogene Lloyd Webber said in England they believe healthcare is a right. I cannot believe she understands what she's saying. If she did she would realize she's talking nonsense.

A right is something we're born with––it is God given and intrinsic to your being––you don't have to inquire of another for it, resubscribe or send for more through mail order.

A good is something we require or need that demands the service, labor or cooperation of another. We must seek outside of ourselves to get the goods we need, and this may involve resubscribing, sending for a item thorough mail order or showing up on time for an appointment. And for those things we or someone else must pay.

There's more. Imogene seems to be unaware that when muddleheaded modern thinking confuses goods we need with rights, and social policies are implemented accordingly, a slave society is the, de facto, result.

I say this because when a service or a product is wrongly declared to be a right it means, in effect, that we can demand the labor or production of a certain class or group of citizens and expect to get it as an entitlement without the strict necessity of remuneration, because the good they labor to produce or provide has been made our RIGHT to possess regardless of our ability to pay.

If claiming a right to the fruit of another's labor is not slavery I don't know what is? If funds are taken by force from my neighbor to pay for an item the state has declared as my right to posses, the time it took my neighbor to earn the money forcibly taken from him was time he labored as a slave.

There's more. Once government begins can anyone say just where government will stop in creating rights from thin air? What will be next? The right to food? If so then can I expect some glad day to walk into super markets and take what I please to feed me and my family? What about shelter? Will there be a time I can demand a house from a contractor without compensating him?

How are the services and products of a nurse, a doctor or a pharmaceutical company any different from those of the grocer, the farmer or building contractor? We need all those goods to live––we are certainly not born with them. We exercise our natural rights to labor to earn the funds to procure those goods we need. Why should healthcare and medicines be free but food and shelter must be paid for?

Whether she is aware of it or not, Imogene cannot be saying that healthcare is a right like, for instance, our free will, or liberty. That is absurd. She is simply talking nonsense and gibberish unless a distinction is made between natural and positive rights.

Natural rights, as we've said, are given by God and intrinsic to our nature. Jefferson, in the Declaration, says such rights are given to us by "the God of Nature."

In contrast, Positive rights are those a group or a government declares to be made rights arbitrarily, for their own particular (or peculiar) reasons.

So, what Imogene is really saying is the British Government has decided to create a positive right out of thin air based upon the subjective ideology of some in England who have seized enough political and legislative power to make said invented "right" the law of their land and confiscate funds from British subjects through taxation to cover the expense.

What the powerful in England seem not to see, along with Imogene, is that in their desire to actualize the good of healthcare for all they have resurrected an age old evil which had only recently been vilified and expunged from their society: slavery.

Through nationalized healthcare slavery has sneaked back into England through the backdoor held open by the Fabian socialists.

They might protest saying that what they are doing is far from chattel slavery. But the truth of the matter is there is no different in principle, but only in degree, between chattel and political slavery. Past ages blessed with better thinkers saw that truth with crystal clarity.

If rights come to be regarded as state created rather than God given I have the following questions:

If the state, not God, is the giver of rights can the state also take rights away---even the ones we previously understood to be natural rights from God?

If the state usurps the place of God and becomes the sole Giver of rights can it also justly ask its citizens or subjects to commit atrocities like those the Nazis committed and not have them held personally responsible for crimes against humanity?

As more and more rights are created will we all be required to become the full time slaves of an all-powerful state in order to actualize the utopian dreams of some?

As we come ever nearer to actualizing the utopian dream of the powerful elite is it possible the dream of those few might become a nightmare from which the rest of us cannot awaken and from which we have no recourse, alternative or escape––except, perhaps, that of state administered euthanasia?