As the title suggests, nothing in life is free and that certainly includes the making of it! If the average American can’t enjoy their diddling without government support, then this “land of the free” is one insulting come on!
The Trump Presidency is actually addressing a lax interpretation of our unalienable rights granted in our Constitution. This modern revisionism has transformed common sense into an indistinguishable player.
At the time of its writing, the unalienable right to “free speech” didn’t recognize the right to utter profane or vulgar insults just as it is understandable that “fire” in a crowded setting shouldn’t be yelled. It’s just common sense that freedoms are not unlimited or boundless.
In that same vein, a so-called freedom which intrudes upon one’s religious rights is not freedom at all but rather an illegal intrusion into one’s private property of thought and belief. A particular freedom doesn’t depend upon, recognize or legitimize such an injury to another.
So, contrary to what the liberal press is now yelping about, the Trump Administration aims to defend all American’s with regards to their unalienable religious rights and beliefs.
I suspect that the lower Sunday church attendance provides grist for this mill. However, this only undresses the numbers game, based upon the majority and why our Forefathers dismissed any thought of America being a democracy.
Contrary to her status of being president of the National Woman’s Law Center (NWLC), which in itself is sexist oriented, her quote detailing her perceived intentions of the Trump Administration, “If you want to discriminate, we have your back” is just so divisively counter productive; it actually pegs the illegitimacy of this entire argument.
Then there’s Jodee Winterhof of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Her reactive impulse was, “an all-out assault, on women, LGBT people and others.” All this because Trump is acknowledging the fact that nobody should be afforded a free ride, especially with their diddling affairs? Really, why should the tax payer subsidize a citizen’s optional enjoyment?
Finally, there is the ACLU lawyer Brigitte Amiri who added, “…the federal government cannot authorize discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise.” Well, Ms Amiri, your ‘otherwise’ may be in the form of our unalienable rights, inherent at birth from our Creator.
Now I know that your revised interpretations of American law spurs you on but I think you, your ACLU brethren, those at the NWLC and HRC should all respectfully take your secondary positions with regards to our Creator’s seniority, not to mention his everlasting authority.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com