I want to talk briefly about language. Language is something I think far too often neglected in our culture. We no longer say what we really mean. Everything must suffer "nuances" and "penumbras", cloaking any new idea or thought in doublespeak. I imagine such obfuscation makes such positions easier to defend. Our former President, Bill Clinton, brought this to the lowest common denominator with his pathetic response "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Is this just laziness on our part, that we don't pay as close attention to what we say anymore? Perhaps a little. Just as likely is that it is intentionally used to subtley and slowly change perception. Let's look at say, the discussion we hear all too often of our 'civil' rights. Shall we look at the definition of a civil right? It is most often referred to as a right or rights guaranteed by reason of citizenship, but more specifically and notoriously if refers to rights granted to the people by government. If a government can grant a right, reasonably they can set limits on it, restrict it as they see fit, and even take it away.

Even some discussion of our most fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or expression are lately being regarded as civil rights. Refer to this paragraph quoted from Walter Williams' excellent column from August 3rd. The article deals with the left's continuing hatred of individual property rights, but Williams' excerpt shows a definite tell on the part of the defender of the state's position.

According to Ms. Lochhead's article, "Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director, said the case [Kelo v. New London] had been brought by the Institute for Justice as part of an effort by conservatives to elevate property rights to the same level of civil rights such as freedom of speech and religion, in effect taking the nation back to the pre-New Deal days when the courts ruled child labor laws unconstitutional."

See that notice of 'civil' rights? Well, the government gave you those rights, just like you're trying to get them to give you rights regarding your property! For shame.

A term you don't hear very often today, and one more proper to such freedoms as speech, expression and one of my personal favorites, the right to bear arms, is natural rights, that is, rights endowed to you by your Creator. It's no wonder so much effort is made to make ours a secular society these days. It makes it so much easier to curtrail freedoms and remold society in one's own image, if you remove that pesky God from the picture. As our Founding Fathers feared (say that fast ten times), if there is to be assumed no divine origin for our rights, then how can we justify that they are inalienable or fundamental? If rights were merely assumed by men, then other men (and women, let's not be sexist), can take them away, with full justification.

This is what we see every day, and it continues to worsen. We ignore such things at our peril. The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance, as Thomas Jefferson noted.