Surprise, surprise - Obama wants to rewrite the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution

When asked point blank by Tom Brokaw in the debate last night, Deus Obamus revealed just how worthless a law degree from an esteemed Ivy League school actually is. To point, I am not an attorney, but I can recognize the difference between a right, a privilege, and a responsibility. John McCain answered this question appropriately. Obama failed. Why is this important? It is a window into the heart of the liberal. The liberal feels the Constitution is a living document. That rights evolve over time. Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. addressed this issue when this monstrosity first reared its ugly head under the guise of Hillarycare. Here’s what he said,

The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man’s unalienable, individual rights. The term “rights,” note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with — and that anyone who violates a man’s rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That’s all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald’s, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights — and only these.

It is interesting to note the original US Constitution did not actually enumerate any rights, since our rights do not come from government, but FROM OUR CREATOR. (I know that this may confuse Obama as he tends to believe that he is one and the same…) The Framers, however, did not trust government to leave well enough alone (and rightly so), so they inserted the Bill of Rights to provide an “insurance policy” for the American people against their democratically elected representatives that their limited, enumerated powers did not encompass the abridging of such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to keep and bear arms, etc.Dr. Peikoff continues:

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

Please show me where it is delineated that I am obligated to allow those individuals, who do not provide for themselves the means to take care of themselves and their families, to steal my time and energy so that they may have health care. Next comes the right to autocare, grocerycare, haircare… Where does it stop?