Floyd Reports

Recently, a discussion of this story about DC Comics being pressured by homosexual activists to fire one of its writers because he’s on the board of the National Organization of Marriage prompted vigorous debate on my Facebook wall. While perusing through the various comments, it was obvious there still exists much confusion in our country today about the term “rights.”

There are two types of rights: unalienable and contractual.

Sometimes referred to as a natural right (i.e. “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reference from The Declaration of Independence), an unalienable right is a right that comes from God and thus can be accessed in your natural state without consent from another party because it existed before you were born and will still exist in nature after you die. It’s inherent to being made in the image of God.

Should another party attempt to stop you from accessing your unalienable (or natural) rights, they are guilty of a crime, oppression, tyranny, or all of the above. For example, I do not require anyone’s consent to breathe air; for it is foundational to my natural state of being. However, should you attempt to stop me from breathing, then you are guilty of assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder if you’re ultimately successful.

If it requires consent from another party to access it, then it is not an unalienable (aka natural) right because you have to impose upon someone else’s unalienable (aka natural) rights in the process. Taking someone else’s person or property without their consent is what we call a crime.

Nowadays, some are claiming unalienable (or natural) rights that don’t exist.

For example, you do not have an unalienable (or natural) right to marry or have sex with whomever you want because partaking of each of those activities requires consent from another party. We call people who believe they can have sex (aka “physical intimacy”) with whomever they want rapists and put them in prison whenever we can. We call people who believe they can marry whomever they want cult leaders, sultans, kings, and tyrants because they’re acquiring harems and concubines.

Likewise, you also don’t have a natural right to live where you want, as I’ve heard some claim on issues like immigration. To believe that requires you to believe that private property doesn’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe I have the right to defend my own property (which our founders absolutely did), then you also have to believe that “we the people” have the right to defend our own property as well. In a “government by the consent of the governed,” that property in this case are the borders and lands of these United States of America. We own them, and they are our private property. Therefore, we have a right to possess and police them accordingly.

Rights that require the consent of another party are contractual rights.

A good example of contractual rights would be the U.S. Constitution, which begins with the words, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.” Immediately, the parties involved in the contract are established: the people, the states, and the federal government (or union). From there, each party states in the contract the terms, jurisdictions, and liabilities each are responsible for and permitted to perform. Some of the rights in the Constitution are unalienable (natural) rights like the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship because you don’t require consent to access them. That’s why the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” prohibiting or establishing those things because Congress has no power to either establish or take away that which “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” alone bestows.

However, other rights in the Constitution are purely contractual; but where people get confused here is they fail to understand that this language is intended to bind the government and not the individual. For example, the government consents to saying it has no right for “unlawful search and seizure” as other governments in human history have indulged. It is not saying you as a private person have a right to therefore store crack cocaine in your locker or illicit pictures of children on your computer. This is the government contracting with its citizens to limit its own means, not the other way around.  In fact, that is the theme of the entire Bill of Rights. Just because the state promises not to exceed its authority over the individual does not give the individual the right to exceed his authority over “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

That is always the highest authority.

For example, should the U.S. Federal Court hear a civil suit between two murderous drug cartels because one failed to deliver the promised narcotics to the other and thus violated the contract? Of course not, because their very activity violates “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”; therefore, the proper response is to arrest them as criminals instead.

Similarly, just because someone consents to having sex with you doesn’t mean that suddenly you have a contractual right to have sex with them. Is the person just a child and therefore unable to make a mature decision? Is that person mentally unstable or disabled, and thus unsure of what it is they’re really consenting to? Is that person married to someone else?

In conclusion, it comes down to this: if our rights first and foremost come from “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then anything we do to indulge or claim those rights that violates that law isn’t a right. It’s a transgression—even if the other party consents to it. That simply means they’re just as guilty as you are.

You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will; and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the “father of the Constitution” James Madison referred to as “the Governor of the universe” will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.

(You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.) 

The left unabashedly advocates the forced acceptance by millions of traditional Americans of behavior they feel is immoral.

When it comes to transgender individuals, progressives are exceptionally adamant they be afforded any and all courtesies – even when it obviously violates the freedom of others.

This trend was highlighted in graphic detail when a transgender man was allowed to disrobe in a locker room often frequented by young girls. More recently, the Massachusetts Department of Education released an 11-page guide for treating transgender students.

In addition to permitting students to decide which restroom they wish to use and allowing them to play on sports teams designated for a gender other than theirs, the document also allows for the punishment of noncompliant students.

Should a young female student not wish to be in a restroom with a male schoolmate who calls himself a girl, she must pay the consequences under the directives set forth by the agency.

“It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline,” the document states.

Other suggestions included in the guide are no less disturbing.

Under one proposed rule, parents would not be privy to their own child’s gender choice at school. Boys attempting to dominate a girls basketball team or simply wishing to enter a girls locker room with impunity could feasibly present themselves as a female while at school without alerting their parents.

The agency also wants to put a stop to any requirements that boys and girls dress according to their respective genders. Additionally, any activities that specify one’s gender, such as forming separate lines for boys and girls, are out under the new directives.

These extreme measures are being proposed under the guise of ending discrimination against transgender students but are so broad they actually result in the discrimination of students with traditional values.

Once again, while all other special interest groups and minorities are protected at all costs, conservative Americans are told they are fueled by intolerance and deserve the constant hate of their more enlightened counterparts.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: joshbousel (Creative Commons)

A gun in the hands of an evildoer troubles me. My hope is that in times of trouble and disarray, there will be just, responsible, God-fearing men who may rise up to slay those who seek to destroy.

I do believe that every individual has the right to carry a gun for protection and defense. But please, let’s pray we never have to use it. And let’s love our neighbor before and above our guns!

If we need to use our weapons, let’s understand what it means to take a life and not do so recklessly without caution or just cause…. that an accidental, unintended, unwarranted death not be the final outcome!

May we carry our guns and love our neighbors!

God Bless America! Land of the free and home of the brave!!!