The right to privacy?

July 4th 1776, the United States Congress ratified the final language of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from what, from whom? These people were British colonists, and the Declaration was the beginning of an attempt to get back the rights that were taken from them. These words should be familiar to Every American. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The order of the rights should tell us something. The right to life is so basic, it shouldn’t need defining, and only human life can be endowed with rights.

What about liberty? Is liberty the same as freedom? Why should we, in 2018, care about words written in 1776? Did these so-called “Founding Fathers” even have the same understanding of those concepts as we do today? Let’s begin by defining rights. I think they can best be understood considering restraints. We can do anything that our minds can comprehend and our bodies allow in the absence of external restraints. We can, but should we?

Consider rights as the inherent or enforced (by law) ability to pursue something. The Declaration of Independence used the phrase “the pursuit of happiness.” Happiness covers a lot of ground, so that will serve. A right is the ability to pursue happiness, within the boundaries of your physical ability and protection of law. The law can only protect rights when it is enforced. It can only be enforced when it is written. Even then, what is written might be misinterpreted or ignored. The clearest example is the First Amendment of the constitution. The text is not ambiguous. “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.” Okay class, let’s see if the language is plain to you, fill in the blanks. The first amendment is clearly addressed to ____________. If freedom of speech is not to be abridged by government, then it is a right ______________. Exercise of religion is neither to be ____________ nor ___________ by Congress.

The correct words in order (synonyms acceptable) are: Congress, assumed, promoted, prohibited. Now consider how this very clear amendment has been twisted to selfish ends. It has been used to justify pornography and exploitation under the guise of “freedom of speech”. It has been used to bludgeon schools and sports teams to prevent voluntary prayer under the guise of “separation of church and state”, which doesn’t even appear in the entire Constitution (it was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in a personal letter) and has no force of law. Misinterpretations of it have been applied to individuals, businesses, schools, and all manner of organizations other than Congress!

Roe v. Wade was a legal decision issued on January 22, 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century. What does the 14th Amendment actually say? There are 4 clauses in the first section, one of which is the “due process” clause, which forms the basis for this right to privacy: Due process clause:nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

If we extend this “honest reading” exercise to the 14th amendment, wherein do we find this right of privacy? We don’t. What we DO find is the right to life! It is a great irony–and tragedy–that this amendment, created with the intent of providing former slaves with all the rights of citizenship, was used to justify a “right to abortion”, which deprives the right to life and has been used to kill a disproportionately large number of babies in the lineage of former slaves!!! Even more important, since our rights are secured by an honest reading of the law, and the highest court ignores the clear injunction to not deprive any person of their right to life, in favor of an imagined right to privacy, which isn’t written, how secure can we be in our rights? The Supreme Court covered itself with shame and odium with this decision, and has thus inherited the ridiculous spectacle of the Kavanaugh confirmation circus (next post).

There are those who would try to argue that the unborn aren’t persons, and have no right to life, and I can shred that argument. That is a subject for another blog.

Investigations in the hands of the dishonest!

Years from now, when no one remembers the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, some particularly astute historian may write about them as a watershed moment in the disrespect of evidence. I have long complained about small minds choosing to dwell on particulars while ignoring principles. Most commentators on this travesty called a “confirmation hearing” tend to focus on their own agenda. Democrats and their allies say they care only what Mr. Kavanaugh might have done in his foolish youth. Republicans and their allies insist that Demolitionistscrats are caviling about his youthful   indicretions  advances…(um, we’re not sure what they were or whether they were, but no matter) as a matter of protecting abortion rights and sticking it to Trump (if you are reading this many years hence, Trump, first name Donald, is currently President of the United States, a large country that once existed as a haven of peace and prosperity relative to the rest of the world, before succumbing to rampant selfishness and breaking up into 5 separate enclaves).

Daniel Henniger writing for the Wall St. Journal has a way of nailing the big picture; here is an excerpt from his column: “It is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17. Ms. Ford’s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a “full investigation by law-enforcement officials.” Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something. Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.
Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind. The Kavanaugh nomination, “given what we know,” has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn’t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.”

What was Brett Kavanaugh guilty of? Is he lying now, or telling the truth? If he is lying, he should not be confirmed, even though the Supreme Court has it’s share of dishonest decisions. But the point is larger than him or his confirmation. THE POINT IS, WHEN “EVIDENCE” IS AN UNPROVABLE ACCUSATION, THE VERY IDEA OF EVIDENCE ITSELF IS MOCKED! HAVE WE BECOME LIKE THE NATIONS WHICH RULE BY SHOW TRIALS?? showtrial

Hard to believe, but even the New York Times agrees. believability