Can we PLEASE hurry up and repeal the Nineteenth Amendment, while we still have even a glimmer of a chance of preserving the Constitution?

If you cannot prove--and no one has--the existence of a deity, then what be the fate of rights?

Your answer is that they are "permissions" granted by men, i.e., by government.

But a 'right' is not a permission and is *not* "granted" to you by other men.

Rights _are_ inalienable, derived from Man's nature as a fully conscious, volitional being. As such, a 'right' is a concept formulated upon that nature and they function as a bridge connecting ethics to politics.

"Rights are a moral concept, the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individuals actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others, the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context, the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" (Mans Rights, The Virtue of Selfishness, 93; Ayn Rand).

The form the concept 'right' take is that of a _moral principle_.

"A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a mans right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

"The concept of a right pertains only to action specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

"Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

"The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

"Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values" (Ibid; 93)

As long as you tie rights to the supernatural, you will continue to see your rights erode, which is why the last thing this country needs is another POTUS who believes in the supernatural, whether that be the supernaturalism of socialism or of religion.

I use Yahoo! to read the daily comics. I get exposed to their idea of news. It is definately left wing stuff. Last week they had a headline about teapartyers being dangerous racist homophobe terrorists.

If you read her later tweets, she blames all the flak she's getting for not knowing about the Declaration of Independence on... wait for it... being a woman! She's being attacked on the internet because she's a woman!

https://twitter.com/meredithshiner/status/580097037200408576

"A POLITICAL REPORTER who is unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence."

All of them?

She's reading that as "The Declaration of Independents" and she wants no part of that ...

I, too, am appalled at the lack of embarrassment and shame, and the abundance of hubris in her "pushback" that all the reasoned criticism is just because she's "a woman", and that she's not only "right" (because she told herself so), she's a "WOMAN" (hear me roar) who's right. Obviously, a logical outgrowth of the everybody's-special-and-gets-a-trophy just for being such a special, precious snowflake--especially a female snowflake.

She's really making a fool of herself out there. I'm almost embarrassed for her.

I was ready to publicly wonder what was it she meant to say , but with her 'they are picking on me because of my boobs' complaining -
No sympathy, just bewilderment that Yahoo didn't realize she was a Jane Curtain.

She must get her knowledge of the Declaration of Independence from Obama: http://tinyurl.com/2cah5vc

"The Declaration of Independence says the same thing. Clues are half off at Payless. Get one." Tweet of Month

Now Meredith is complaining that she is just a poor little girl and all the criticism she is getting for her ignorance is sexist hate. Here she is on her Twitter feed:

"Pro-tip: don't be a woman and also on the Internet."

*snort!*

There are some really, really smart girls on the internet. Meredith just isn't one of them.

Cold, but apt ...

In her defense, many women are incapable of understanding the concepts of rights and responsibilities. Not all of them, mind you. Just the vast majority.

... just 'government' ... b/c, shut up!

One of the disadvantages of having yahoo mail is having to put up with yahoo news, which has to be a major factor in our large population of low info voters.

i use Yahoo Mail. I'm not inflicted with yahoo News.

I have a personal and a business email account. When I log out of one it puts me on the Yahoo home page which contains all sorts of teasers and links to Yahoo news articles. Strictly speaking, I'm not actually on the news page, but I have to put up with what Yahoo considers to be news - though I try to ignore it.