While Matthew 6:3; "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" alludes to charitable giving, the expression today is more commonly said never let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, and has come to mean that we should learn to keep our varied interests separate. That both the so called "left" and the so called "right" know precisely what each are doing is the stuff of conspiracy and who've they conspired against should be of great concern.

Many do not know what they are saying even when they know the precise definition of the word. I am astounded at how many people say "you can't have your cake and eat it too". Surely most who are saying this know the precise definition of each word and yet can't seem to recognize the absurd contradiction of their remark. I will get pedantic with them and point out that there is no reason to have cake if you can't eat it and if one is going to eat cake they must have it first. Few tolerate the pedant and most will roll their eyes and declare "You know what I mean!" Of course, they mean you can't eat your cake and have it too, which is to say that nature works in a certain way and once one action is completed consequences follow. But what they are actually saying is that one cannot enjoy what they have, and they don't even realize this is what they are saying.

While I disagree with Heidegger that we do not speak language but language speaks us, I disagree in that it is insane to invent language only to have it turn around and invent us, but Heidegger's observation is true of far too many people.

It is not enough to know the precise definition of words. We must understand the meaning of that definition and we must pay close attention to how we use those words.

I am talking about all unalienable rights. Liberty is too vague to qualify as a singular right and the pursuit of happiness even vaguer still.

Recently the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that there is no fundamental right to sleep outdoors. Is that right? Never mind the fact that long before there were governments there were people sleeping outdoors and doing so by right...unalienable right, the real question in regards to a higher court ruling bound by a federal Constitution is where did the 11th Circuit find the lawful authority to make such a determination? Given the 9th Amendment, of course they don't and the 11th Circuit acted criminally in making this determination.

The right to speech is an unalienable right. No government regardless of what their constitution may say, has the authority to grant such a right and make it a civil right, it is an unalienable right. The infant doesn't first check with First Amendment before crying to make sure it has the right to do so, that infant instinctively understands he or she has the right to cry.

Ever enumerated right in the Bill of Rights is an unalienable right not granted by that Constitution but instead is written in express language that is clearly prohibiting the federal government from trampling on these rights and the 9th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that all enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people.

It is self evident what rights are. Because all people have the right to life, it follows they have the right to defend that life. Because all people have the right to property they have the right to defend that property and individuals certainly have the right to defend others in need in that defense. In this narrow scope of understanding, the right to force only exists in relation to the defense of certain rights. Outside of this, what any individual does that causes no harm they do by right...unalienable right.

Liberty has been shot to hell because far too many people have fallen prey to the sacred cow of "civil rights". Civil rights are legal rights and what can be granted legally can be taken away legally. Unalienable rights cannot be taken away. This is the very definition of unalienable. There is no need to recover any unalienable rights only a need to assert them, jealously guard them and zealously protect them.