"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams

Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State.
Please join us!

Saturday, March 30, 2013

None of these Rights are absolute...NONE of them

Sen. Durbin, makes it quite clear that he doesn't think any of our Rights are actually Rights, but merely things that he and his fellow goons can restrict and take away at will.
So, because some idiots elect him, he thinks he can decide what Rights I should be permitted to be allowed to have. Which Rights are not Absolute? NONE of them?

To quote from the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson has a differing view.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Let's look to Jefferson's contemporary Noah Webster for the definition of the word "unalienable".

UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

So Dick, you tyrannical fool, you are wrong. And you sit there like you are some kind of scholer in Constitutional matters? Idiot. All of our Rights are Absolute. The only thing restricting them is this, again from Thomas Jefferson:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

You can skip to minute 5:30 to see what I am talking about. Why isn't this one part of the conversation going viral? Why aren't people freaking out over this idiot's comment?
I guess I will be the start.



  1. Sen. Durbin needs to get pummeled with a healthy dose of John Knox.

    I take a Psalms 2 view of such blatant idiotry on the part of the civil magistrate.

  2. The problem is that D.Durbin is correct in the context within which he is speaking. All of the "rights" have been "infringed" in some way and to some degree and hence are not "absolute". That's why Durbin says to Cruz that he knows he (Cruz) has been to law school and should know better (i'm completely paraphrasing here). Durbin is speaking of legal rights v. natural rights and may not believe at all in natural rights. A lot of people do not. We don't even have agreement on the definition of a right. I would want that word defined before I ever started to argue for or against. Good luck on that!

  3. Good point Rick, I think it's one to make a post on. Rights.
    Do we care if Durbin believes in Natural Rights? Does his belief make it so or not?
    Not at all, we can see, and we know because it is Natural, that we have these Rights, they are not given by Durbin, nor can they be taken away by him. True, he can use force and violence to infringe on them, but it has no weight on whether or not they are Absolute or not. As Locke showed us the put themselves in a state of war against us. And as history has shown, that people are long suffering.

    But it has also shown, that a people who burn and yearn for Liberty, can and will achieve it.