He was probably talking about the “rights granted by God” and no so much the “rights granted by Congress” or something like that since the other guy said “unalienable” or whatever…

Either way, you have to watch Glenn Beck everyday? I feel so bad for you, j/k.

Sigh. Perhaps one should take a charitable interpretation before playing Mediaite Matters.

But you’re probably just throwing out some comment bait to increase adviews. So I guess it’s understandable.

Glenn Beck is a babbling ignoramus. In other news, gravity is what keeps thinks from flying off into space and water is wet.

Also, Glynnis, the plural is Founder is Founders, not “Founder’s.” “Founder’s” is a singular possessive, and you wanted a simple plural. In addition, “Which, regular viewer will know, is great” implies that Glenn Beck has one and only one viewer. Much as we may wish that were the case, I think you meant “viewers.” Which, regular reader will know, is plural.

Maybe this indicates Beck’s ignorance is contagious, in which case you should take a couple of days off from subjecting yourself to such concentrated doses of high-fructose stupidity.

This isn’t the first time that Glenn has proven that all his reading of history has done is given him names and dates to throw out there. Without a good grasp of what really happened instead of just the narratives that suit his purposes he continuously proves that his understanding of actual history is slim at best.

Things, not thinks. My mistake. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I agree with SWWT on that. Beck is speaking about the Declaration of Independence unalienable rights granted by God. That is what he was getting at. But Harkin, though he used that “unalienable right” jargon, was not talking about the Declaration.

Thanks for giving a grammar lesson JJHunsecker. Does this phrase make sense: “the plural is Founder is Founders, not “Founder’s.”" Perhaps you intended to state that the plural of Founder is Founders, not “founder’s.”

Funny when someone comes criticizing grammar usage and theirs is equally crummy.

For the record, the Declaration of Independence never refers to God. It uses the term “Creator” which was a term used by Deists and Masons at that time. They deliberately would never use the word God in a secular document like that. Jefferson wasn’t really a conventional Christian anyway.

Actually the use the term “Nature’s God”, as opposed to God or Jesus Christ.

Constitution and amendments were written by men. Last time I checked, it wasn’t a divine document.

Of course, all rights come from the Creator… the right to free speech, to vote, to remain silent, to a jury of my peers, to bear arms… all of these were conferred by the Creator.

Or at least, they must’ve been, because I have those rights, and that one sentence in a man-made document says that those rights can’t be man-made… else those men must’ve been so delusional as to think they were God.

Right.

I agree with the article except for the out of character part.

This is exactly the “character” of right-wing demagogues, fudging the facts or outright lying to manipulate the masses into supporting policies otherwise anathema to their own self interests.

While Raines did penance for Judith miller and WMD’s, by calling on all actual journalists to call out these partisan hacks on Fax and hate radio, much more needs to be done in the MSM to educate the populace on the harm caused to America by listening to these shills.

Let’s just be literal for a moment:

“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…”

So, men are, according to the Founders, endowed with certain unalienable Rights, and those rights are endowed by their CREATOR. Notice the Capital “C”. This isn’t just a vague deist concept (though deists were not very doctrinal) but rather a specific reference to a somewhat more specific, monotheist creative Deity. Since most of the founders were either explicitly Christian or came from the Christian tradition, it’s no big mystery who they were referring to, while at the same time trying to keep language out of foundational documents that would endorse a specific creed.

The idea was that natural law – written into men’s hearts by their Creator – was the origin of the civil law. So while Congress makes laws to PROTECT rights, they do not CREATE rights – that is outside their purview, such as they are a fundamental part of being a human being in any time and place, and whether you agree with it or not, that notion was clear in the thinking of the founders to anyone who might care to study what they actually said.

I think someone else might need to revisit their American history…

Glenn has yet again made an ass of himself, but it’s not Glenn that I hold accountable, but rather Glynnis for writing a piece that actually quotes Glenn in context making an ass of himself!! The liberal bias on this site leaves me no choice but to go into insipid whining mode. Stop picking on Glenn; he knows his history people!!!

Good God..what the hell is this??..Media Matters Junior??

Grow up….seriously.

Well…at least Beck referenced the correct document…unlike the “‘constitutional scholar” in the SoTU

I swear I didn’t cue in Barney.

Cactus is absolutely right. The Founders believed that you are born into this world with all of your rights intact and that no government institution or official has the power to deprive you of those rights (thus “unalienable”). Governments are merely artificial constructs, organized and enabled by men and women to create a peaceful society in which those rights are best guaranteed. Governments do not have the power to create RIGHTS Glynnis, they can only create LAWS. It’s incredibly depressing to realize that contemporary Americans no longer see this distinction that was so clear to the original Americans.

heh. I know Marcus Lewis– 98% of the time those grammar and spelling comments have at least one error of both. Because it is our inalienable right to mock pomposity :) Alrighty then. Moving on. . .

Glynnis,here’s the truth about Glenn. He is a narcissistic undereducated ex-druggie Mormon convert with better than average showmanship skills.

Everything he says and does can be explained by the above witch’s brew. Probably the most instructive thing to do is to take a good long look at the practices and beliefs of the LDS church. If you do, you will notice that he is including a hodgepodge of Mormon beliefs, 8th grade civics and history (that he got a C or lower grade in), and incipient megalo-mania.

Sometime around the beginning of summer ’09, I think he began to believe that he was intended by God to save the country from an awful calamity. His rhetoric contained a high level of urgency and warnings of impending doom. One of his first tweets was, “we’re all going to die”. That was not meant to be funny. . Around this time he ratchets up the socialist conspiracy theory talk, begins to draw strange diagrams and attack Van Jones and others who he felt was in truth an agent of the conspiracy. He believed that all of Obama’s “czars” were really Alger Hiss figures.

If you listen to Glenn now, you hear him engaging in a huge backfill operation. The calamity never occurred quite as he imagined it would, Acorn videos came and went, Van Jones and Anita Dunn merely left the administration. No “tables were turned” no, “transformative events” occurred, and all that was left was a man who can do nothing more than any other talking head, but without the smarts to offer anything approaching cogent analysis. By this time, though, he has acquired a sizeable audience of NWO conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and perfectly decent conservative people who don’t know enough themselves to realize how much Glenn does not kinow.

Most of the fringe people who may have thought they found legitimacy through Glenn have dropped away. He has a loyal core audience that enjoys his blustering, hamming it up and his silly skits. He IS a good entertainer! His ignorance of American History is pathetic– he opines on the fly as he did with Greta Van Susteren a few days ago when she asked him if he thought obese people on Medicaid should have their diet controlled by the state. But his audience isn’t filled with the David McCulloughs and Doris Kearns Goodwins of the world.

I’m trying to move beyond outrage that anyone listens to this guy, but my mom likes him. ..

Beck’s argument is that governments don’t define what are unalienable rights, the Creator does. It’s the same point the declaration of independence made. In 1776, the point was that government (the British) can’t take away the rights that the Creator endows man with. Similary, in 2010, government can’t declare something to be a right of the same class as those endowed by the Creator.

I don’t see it as a history lesson, but rather a blend of history, government, and theology. You can argue the theology, but it doesn’t mean its a failure of history.

One web definition: The definition of “unalienable rights,” is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else – the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as “natural” or “God-given” rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Steve Skojec: “So while Congress makes laws to PROTECT rights, they do not CREATE rights”
Phil Bourekas: “Beck’s argument is that governments don’t define what are unalienable rights, the Creator does.”

Your comments are some of the best I’ve seen. You guys are far too smart for Glynnis and the rest of the leftists. Hope you stick around.

Thank you Steve Skojec! Finally, someone got it right and no Glynnis, it wasn’t you. Glenn’s entire point is exactly what kenm said.

To be specific, it’s the liberal narrative put forth by politicians like Tom Harkin that big bad republicans are out to take away rights while sweet, compassionate dems/liberals/progressives are here to hand out rights. As the D of I points out, we are born with rights. Plane and simple, this is about how much you want the government controlling your life. For a guy like Glynnis, maybe someone else should be controlling him because he can’t seem to get this simple concept. Less government is good. Big government bad.

Remember the Founders were dealing with the King of England. The memory of being controlled was fresh when the D of I was written. Maybe Glynnis will have more time to figure this out once the government is making all his decisions for him. Was it bad parenting that got you here Glynnis… also part of the left wing narrative. Do you need the government to replace your parents? Are you unable to succeed on your own so now us tax payers need to pay for you? Or could it possibly be that you are a slacker, that you can’t get your facts correct and you can’t take responsibility for your own life? Grow up.

Thank you Jeeper! I very rarely comment on Glynnis’s articles because I can no longer tell whether he is purely incompetent or intentionally tries to take these things out of context to piss people off thereby creating more traffic. If it’s the former I’m not surprised, if it’s the latter it’s pathetic.

I LOVE THIS

Glynnis,here’s the truth about Glenn. He is a narcissistic undereducated ex-druggie Mormon convert with better than average showmanship skills.

True comment!! By the way people this is a BLOG not a high school term paper for your English and Grammar class. Chill out!!

Let me try this out on Glynnis: If she believes that government bestows rights she needs to remember we are a representative republic. That is, we govern ourselves, with elected individuals to act on our behalf in Washington. Therefore she is suggesting that we are able to bestow rights upon ourselves that we did not previously have, somehow. Neat trick, that.

The Bill of Rights did not “grant” those to us, they were established as a set into which government could not intrude. The bulk of the founding documents was based on limiting the scope of government upon the liberty of the individual — dig all the “Shall not”s in the wording. The amendments also did not establish the rights, they opened up governmental restrictions; by example, women were not granted their right to vote, government was no longer permitted to restrict them from their right to vote.

Jeeper- Glynnis is a girl’s name. I can see how you might not know that, though. It’s more common outside the US. You might have seen it in the credits of the Walt Disney movie “Mary Poppins”. Mrs. Banks. Checkitout.

Beck’s bigger mistake is referring to the Declaration of Independence as if it were an actual legal document. It’s nothing more than a symbolic piece of paper that carries no water.

Glynnis, I think you’re grasping at straws with this one.

Our rights don’t come from our government. Beck was right.

Our rights do come from government. With no government, we have anarchy and thus no rights. Feel free to read some political science 101.

MooseOfReason says:
March 16, 2010 at 1:42 am
Glynnis, I think you’re grasping at straws with this one.

Our rights don’t come from our government. Beck was right.
————————————————–

So, we have the right to:

Go out and kill anyone we want to?

Go out and rob any bank we want to?

Go out and set fire to any building we want to?

I think you get my drift.

^No I don’t.

And why are you guys arguing about this?

@ real john

You are confusing rights with laws. No one is born with the right to rob a bank. Laws are in place and enforced to preserve our rights. You have the right to life, therefore taking someone’s life is against the law.

blueblogger – Maybe the best synopsis of GB I’ve seen.

I’m never certain if Glen(n) is ignorant of history, or if he simply manipulates history to support some half-cocked rightist historical talking point. In my charitable times, I go with the former. I’m not sure the man is bright enough to create a parallel history. I suppose he could be a conduit for the thoughts of others. At any rate, this was a great exposure of this little annoyance.

I don’t know how long Beck devoted to this one statement from Tom Harkin and if it was a long time, I’d have to say that he’s really grasping at straws.

Nonetheless, I’ll add to the analysis above (including RDizzle’s) that the Bill of Rights guaranteed the core rights and some of the other amendments expanded the definition of “men” to make them more inclusive, but the basic rights have remained pretty much unchanged. Health care reform would also fit into this basket because, well… “life” is self-explanatory; “liberty” could mean the freedom of being healthy and clear of crippling bills, which would lead to the “pursuit of happiness”.

Otherwise, perhaps Beck and I might be able to go a round on the definition of “enhance”, but though he was probably motivated by his own personal war on behalf of “original intent” and I don’t think the Harkin quote would be worth a segment, I can’t say that he’s very far off with his analysis.

Signed,
Dude who thinks “creator” was politically expedient

Glynnis, it is touching to hear you defend the Declaration of Independence. But you should read up on natural law and inalienable rights. The very fact that you think the Senate can take away everybody’s rights by fiat explains why Mr. Beck is so popular.

Glynnis, our rights NEVER come from our legislators…if they did, then these same legislators could take them away. They REPRESENT ## US## ! not the other way around.

The most important “right” from God is “to be left alone” by the govt. My body, my healthcare is MY business, not anyone else’s

IMO, Glynnis is confusing the right of legislators to forcibly TAKE money (which = freedom) from some and dole it out to others….none of which has anything to do with “rights”…merely raw POWER of the STATE to seize a part of my ‘liberty, freedom’ and award it to someone THEY choose.

Our rights come from God..and the govt needs to stay the hell out of the way.

>The most important “right” from God is “to be left alone” by the govt.

This isn’t Saudi Arabia. This is America. Our Constitutional rights were given to us and declared by the Founding Fathers.

Our Constitutional rights were IDENTIFIED by the framers of the Constituion. I believe they implied that the Constitution guarantees each CITIZEN certain “INALIENABLE” (not “unalienable”) rights that are guaranteed by their CREATOR, and among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE “PURSUIT” OF HAPPINESS. Please note that the Constitution does NOT guarantee that everyone will be happy–just that they may pursue happiness.

Glynnis, you will be happy to know that Glenn just brought this up on his show and had a judge on that told him that in fact, he was correct. I look forward to your update and have emailed Mediaite to request one as well.

If our rights were granted to us by the government exactly how did they bestow the first declared right — Life — upon us?

They create rights, and , also known as a Constitutional amendment. Then they take this proposal for an amendment and send it to all the State legislatures, 3/4 of which must ratify it in order for it to become law. Therefore guaranteeing an individual’s rights.

So, what right did the 16th Amendment establish? How about the 11th? The 18th?

And if “they” create rights, why does it require 3/4 of states to ratify?

The difference between inalienable and unalienable….

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

I often get the impression the many of you are satisfied with being a subject of the government rather than the government being subject to you, If the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence states anything it states the limitations of the government.
We send people to a place (Washington D.C) to represent our needs and desires. We choose PEOPLE whom we hope will stand up for our individual districts and states so we can continue to live the lives we choose, while pursuing happiness.
What is unique about this form of government is the the restrictions that are in place are not for the governed but for the governors; as seen in the lines that read “Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of ….” In the articles of the Constitution before the Bill of rights the powers of the governors are spelled out explicitly. Then it goes on in the Bill of Rights it further tell the governors (Federal) which rights they cannot take from the citizenry. As I remember, I never saw the citizenry referred to as “The Subjects”.
Does anyone like me also think that although the Federal Government limited itself to certain powers it deferred all other powers to the states. Yet in today’s climate it seems that the Federal government reaches before its’ constitutional powers and dictates to the states its’ will. For example when Florida, years back built an Interstate Hwy (I-4) completely with state funds, no input from the Federal Government and then proceeded to set the speed limit according to the design of the Highway (it was 65mph), the Feds threaten to withdraw funding from the states other Interstate (I-10 and I-95) highways unless Florida reduced the speed limit on I-4 to the National 55 mph limit. To me that screamed of over stepping the intent of powers.

The Declaration states that our rights come from God. The Constitution is a legal protection of those God-given rights. The Constitution does not grant us new rights or modify our rights. Attempts to force the Constitution to do this are, as ironic as it may seem, unconstitutional.

We have grown so accustomed to the concept that government is the source of our rights that the unique relationship between government and citizen that our founding documents provide us has been turned upside down. As a people, we have neglected our responsibility to educate ourselves and hold our representatives to account. During the period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War these were things that Americans universally understood, but a century of Progressivism has crippled the electorate.

Beck was pointing to and quoting the Declaration of Independence which is not law in this country, it is a call for insurrection and states the reasons why. The Constitution has no mention of God. John Adams writing Article 10 in the Treaty of Tripoli: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”. Treaties are ratified by the Senate and so are part of the law of the land. Beck is as usual full of hot air and mis-information. He should find a real job.

Well I’m not going to be little the author, just because its not his fault I learn the same history in school. Unfortunately I was taught the edited version too. You see an unalienable right of every American is a right that the founders spoke of while they were constructing the constitution. This right is a natural law given by the almighty and only the Creator can give or take unalienable rights. So when you see this or natural law or providence or God in the Constitution it is direct reference to the the Almighty God. I would point you to the 5000 year leap by Skoreson. Its about a 20 dollar book. In it you find out the truth behind the Constitution, just in the argument that: Okay. I am going to leave out the God part (something I think the Founders also endeavored to do?) no to the contrary if you truly read it word for word and through documentation on the CONVENTION LEADING UPTO THE SIGNING. I feel you find errors in your interpetation based solely high academics. And its one thing to know and one thing to think you know. But to try and spin opinion as if it is fact is very irresponsible, that is what led us to history for retards 101. If you want to know real history go to the source, and a high school text book is not the source. You will be pissed when you find the truth.

I might add I like the website, just wish you went to the source and not the spin off version, you will really be mad when you find out the things they left out. Our so called elders, that knew what was best, look at our country threw our founders eyes, and then look at it threw your eyes, God gave us such a gift, and we pissed it away every last one of us………………….

P.S. The founders said that if the people walked away from God, then the country would fail also, well look around son, 12.6 trillion in debt, less than yr ago we were 10 trillion in debt. how long before were bankrupt my guess less than a year or a year tops being that we only have 14 trillion to spent period. welfare state, free market is a joke term at best, free enterprise which one GM, CITIGROUP,AIG, The insurance industry. Nothing left hope every prepares for russian style economic collapse.

With the exception of just a few, most people commenting on this blog would fail US History (as well as English and Grammar) as is evidenced by the fact that you are obviously unaware that the original word Thomas Jefferson used in the writing the Declaration of Independence was INalienable not UNalienable. While both words have virtually the same meaning, I would think that since every one of you is SO concerned with being correct this fact should not be neglected.

Oh and since you were so interested in correcting everyone else:

marcus.lewis “Funny when someone comes criticizing grammar usage and theirs is equally crummy”
[hello pot? this is the kettle]

is this the Huff Post or a news media site?

its become hard to tell reading these kind of pieces.

Well I am going to show my age here. But Glynnis you are giving Liberals a bad name. Take it from an old Liberal from the sixties. Glen Beck is absolutely right. He was talking about Natural law that the early Liberal thinker “John Locke”, is credited for in the creation of Liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. He contributed to Classical Republicanism and Liberal Theory that are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence. He employed the concept of Natural Rights and the Social Contract to argue that the rule of law should replace Absolutism in government, as written in the U. S Constitution. That being, rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property!
Next time do a little research before you start slamming somebody. You’re are only showing your own Ignorance and making us Liberals look bad! Enough of that go’s on already with the Progressives who have run over Liberal Tolerance!

Anyway Healthcare is not a right! its a privilege for those who get off their ass and get a job and pay for it!

This is 1 of the best blogs in the field of teaching. If I don’t come in for a couple of days, there are so many posts that it’ll hold me a couple of hrs just to go through whatever I missed!! Extolment.

Thanks. great wonderful info. here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the great worked. I cannot really provide a more constructive commentary as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.