Thursday, October 3, 2013

Correcting Lies About 'Human Rights'

Like CSCOPE did/does in Texas, Common Core contains curricula that lie to your kids.

In one recent example, Ben Velderman of EAG reported on one such class in New York's North Bellmore School District.  In one school, fifth graders were being taught about the UN's role in "human rights". The class pushed the false narrative that inalienable rights in the United States are granted and given by the government per their whims.

It is the responsibility of the parents to monitor these curricula. It is the responsibility of parents to insure the kids are being taught facts and the truth, not opinions and lies. It is the parents' responsibility to exercise their authority to tell those "educators" who are doing so to stop. It is also a parent's authority to fire those educators from teaching your child.

In order to do so effectively, parents must inform, educate, and/or refresh themselves on the subject. What follows is a brief lesson in history, civics, and political philosophy. Even if you disagree or do not like any of these origins of our Constitutional Republic, the basis of the ideology and system are a matter of fact.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote of "Our Creator" bestowing upon humans "certain inalienable rights". He then lists three of them. Yes, there are more. These three also imply (are made up) several supporting inalienable rights.

Where did Jefferson get these from? Did he just pull them out of thin air? No.

A long line of political philosophers led two major philosophical thinkers to draw these conclusions. One was John Locke. He posited that most "human rights" could fall into three basic ones: Life, Liberty, Property. Montesquieu, a contemporary, arrived at a similar conclusion. Aristotle founded many of these principles in his rebuttal work meant to disprove Plato's Republic. Even Aristotle, who lived  long before Christianity, posited that certain natural rights were divinely created.

Many atheists will argue against the divine endowment of these rights. They will contend that they come from genetic code and evolution borne of some "happy accident". Even taking that perspective, these rights are not endowed by any government or ruling body. Those ruling bodies only seek to infringe upon them and violate them.

Take birds for example. Their parents do provide for them until they are old enough to leave the nest. At that time, they are kicked out, forced to learn how to fly on their own, and seek their own food. They have their lives. They have their freedom to fly about looking for their own food and shelter. They have their "pursuit of happiness", that is their right to find a mate, build a nest, and find their own food. Should they join a flock, there are certain responsibilities to that flock. However, they still have their individual natural rights and responsibilities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These occur naturally and exist until infringed upon by an outside force.

When drafting the US Constitution, the framers had these individual natural rights in mind. The Constitution was written as a list of limitations on the government as well as a list of "you MUST do" tasks (such as providing for postal roads, ground forces, naval forces, and national security). The framers originally believed that the individual natural rights were so deeply infused in every citizen that they didn't require any explicitly stated limitations on the government to keep them from infringing upon them.

A few smart people objected. They reasoned that future generations may forget these individual, natural, inalienable rights and their meanings. So, they added the first 11 amendments. 10 of them were ratified and became nicknamed "The Bill of Rights".

The Bill of Rights does not grant the rights to the people. Instead, it forbids the government from violating them. The government has no authority to grant these rights. Unchecked, they may mistakenly believe they have the power and authority to violate them. So, the first 10 Amendments blatantly tell the federal government that they do not have that power nor authority.

Read the amendments. Don't look at somebody's summary or explanation of them. Just read them.

For example, the Second Amendment contains the words "shall not be infringed". This means that the right to be armed in order to protect self, property, community, and country is considered an inalienable right all citizens are born with. The government is not allowed to take it away or restrict it. The right is NOT given to the people by the government. It is protected by the US Constitution.

Take a look at the wording of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It tells the government "you can't violate these rights". It doesn't grant them. They are already there. We are born with them, bestowed divinely (or through the "happy accident" of human genetics, for you atheists).

The Third, Fourth, and Fifth all contain strict references to the inalienable right to property (pursuit of happiness). They state that the government cannot violate this natural right unless a citizen is suspected, with some evidence, of violating other laws. Even then, the government is restricted in how far they can do so. Without a justification and duly issued warrant, the government is not allowed to infringe upon this right.

The Seventh grant the federal government the provision, the responsibility, to hold civil courts between citizens claiming other citizens might be violating their individual, natural, inalienable, "human" rights. This is a further mandate to the government to protect (not violate, not grant) those divinely endowed rights.

The Ninth states that there are other rights not explicitly addressed elsewhere in the US Constitution. Just because they are not explicitly addressed doesn't mean the government has the authority to infringe upon them. This amendment forbids the government from doing so. It does not grant the rights. It merely recognizes that they exist and were imbued upon every citizen at the moment of conception.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Individual citizens have the rights, not the government.

The Tenth Amendment bolsters this ideology. It explicitly tells the federal government "if this supreme law of the land doesn't explicitly give you permission, you can't do it. The authority is reserved by either the states or by each individual citizen".

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nowhere within the Constitution does it give the government the power to grant rights to people. Conversely, it tells the government what responsibilities and authority the people, through our individual inalienable rights, grant to the federal government. 

So, make sure your kids understand these founding principles. They are the basis for our system of government. Even if you disagree with the system, you cannot deny the truth and the facts about its founding ideals. Be honest. Teach your kids the facts. Don't let some "educator" mislead or misinform them. This will empower your kids to make up their own minds in the future, as they mature and gather more facts and personal experiences (life).