Forget “rights” says the Seattle Times

This article was originally published in May, 2007, but since the Seattle Times author has just responded to it, I’ve changed the time stamp to bring it to our readers’ current attention.  

“…Certainly the concept of “rights” implies an inconvenient higher obligation, by the ruling power, to respect its own population, whether that means property owners, unborn children or negro slaves. Eradicating the concept of American “rights” is essential to the agenda of self-serving despots…”


Across America Government is stealing land and facilitating theft.
Across America Government is stealing land and facilitating theft.

Today I read the May 2 Seattle Times column “Making a loud noise for fair use of property” by Bruce Ramsey because it was forwarded by Reagan Republican and activist Edwina Johnston. The piece grudgingly acknowledges the impact of the property rights movement (that Ramsey’s newspaper consistently, by censorship and advocacy journalism, opposes). I’m sure Edwina sent it for the good news it contained. But I couldn’t help notice virulent phrases that, to me, were printed in some sort of celestial ink, of the color blood red. Four of them literally shrieked their optic cacophony, loudly refusing to be overlooked.Ramsey began by quoting the “Lincoln Institute for Land Policy”, and their self-righteous activists of autocracy but ended up repeating their premise in his own words.

Let’s review:
1. “property rights are a creation of society” – The Lincoln Institute.
I hope Reagan Wing readers recognize, here, a total rejection of the founding document of the United States: “…and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” – The Declaration of Independence. One might argue that such a rejection of the Declaration implies that we are still, properly, a colony of Britain.

It is clear to all of us who now fight to save American Freedom that the whole of the American Socialist Movement, including The Seattle Times and their fraternal order of media mouths, have not only no respect for, but, at best, only a fading memory of the foundation principles of that Freedom. Their distinctly European assertion, that our rights are bequeathed to us by government, is the philosophical foundation of tyranny. Freedom and Socialism are totally incompatible.

2. “We are not Europeans, who bow to the common good.” – Prof. Harvey Jacobs, U. Wisconsin

What Harvey means to say is that, not being cheese eating surrender monkeys, Americans don’t capitulate to collectivist autocrats (like Jacobs and his National Socialist counterparts in government) which, based on all modern history, would be the European response. We should all pray that such “bowing” remains unpopular.

3. ”… instead of “rights” we should use the term “interests.” – One of the Institue’s [unnamed] speakers

Certainly the concept of “rights” implies an inconvenient higher obligation, by the ruling power, to respect its own population, whether that means property owners, unborn children or negro slaves. Eradicating the concept of American “rights” is essential to the agenda of self-serving despots. The battle is waged, first, in the “theories” and faddish consensus of academia, then in the minds of the culture of our growing mercenary legal establishment, thence to the Orwellian courts where abrogating “rights” is treated as the struggle for “rights” (My right to kill or enslave you or take your property), and finally in the political realm where the degradation of liberty is enacted “progressively” by a coalition of politicians who live by deceptions, and their willing acomplices in the Goebbels Media.

Finally, the Times Columnist, on his own, articulates the concept that is becoming the death knell of Europe:

4. “All rights are ‘social constructs.’” – Bruce Ramsey.

The statement asserts that there is no moral reality to which human institutions may aspire. We may choose to say we have “rights,” says Ramsey, but it’s really only a mutual agreement we’ve reached and can easily be changed. The principles to which generations of Americans have pledged their lives and fortunes, shed their blood on battle fields and to which our heroic mothers yielded their sons are only negotiable “interests.” Nothing to get bent out of shape over. Today America is under attack. The central tenets of Freedom and Justice that are the foundation of our Republic are the target of rhetorical propagandists whose weapons of mass destruction are words and ideas. Diabolical words and ideas. They call those who still believe in the Constitution “extreme” but they are the terrorists.

We cannot afford to cower from them just because they buy ink by the barrel.

The enemies of America must be confronted within our country or the sacrifices of our servicemen abroad mean nothing.
Updated  May 03, 2007   Written by Doug Parris

2 thoughts on “Forget “rights” says the Seattle Times

  1. I’m responding seven months late, but what the heck. Doug, you did not get this column at all. When I said “all rights are social constructs,” I was not attacking property rights. The piece was in favor of property rights. All the other columns I’ve written on the subject–before and after this one–have been in favor of property rights. I do NOT think that property rights are mere “interests” equal to any other asserted interests, or that they are “nothing to get bent out of shape over.” The Lincoln people believe something like that, but I don’t. Nor do I think rights are gifts from a government that owns us. But they are, IN FACT, social constructs–that is, they are ideas that people in the past decided to formally adopt, and that if people in the future don’t care about them, you won’t have them. The point of the column was that even though the property rights side had lost the vote on 933, it had sent a message, and had been a fight worth having.

    Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times editorials

  2. Note my response to Bruce Ramsey, here:

    I should also point out that having someone on the editorial board of the Seattle Times who is in favor of property rights is extremely valuable – probably a miracle – and we should be very grateful to Bruce for his position.

    He probably imperils his employment every time he writes.

    I have seen the Seattle Times print left wing fiction on the front page as news and it is business as usual to cover controversial and ballot issues from only the left side -literally censoring the conservative point of view as if it didn’t exist. The most recent example (that we noted) is the Times’ coverage of the Pharmacist’s economic freedom issue.
    In this article:
    I cover a kind of left-wing-only bias that is so ingrained its carriers (reporters) aren’t even aware of it. They, literally, cannot even perceive the concept of freedom: the limits of the scope of government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s