The Constitution of the United States endows each citizen with rights equal to that of all other citizens. The founders wrote these Individual rights into our governing document explicitly to defend individuals from assault by an overwhelmingly powerful government. However, over time, politicians have effectively abridged the Constitution by defining “civil rights” as an exception to equal rights.

The First Amendment was intended to free us from governmental interference in our religion, our speech (including printed speech) and our peacefully assembling to demonstrate our grievances with the government. The Second Amendment proclaims our freedom to defend ourselves, and if necessary, to repel assault — foreign or domestic — on our Constitution or nation.

Equality is written into the Constitution as a basic tenet of our union. If rights are “equal” for all, there can be no distinctions — between or among us — that modify our equality. Any limitation of our native rights will always result in unequal rights, and therefore is unconstitutional.

No government — federal, state or local — has constitutional authority to alter our native rights. Despite the absence of legitimate authority, elected politicians have increasingly awarded additional “civil” rights to various groups and classes of citizens. Politicians distribute civil rights, much like grocery coupons, to encourage us to buy (or vote for) the offered product.

Civil rights are not actual rights at all; they are not enduring, and can be washed away by the changing political tides. So-called civil rights are no more than perks the government grants to selected groups. They are misguided and futile attempts to coerce society to conform to politically correct ideology. Although civil favoritism might be motivated by good intentions, its effect is always highly discriminatory.

Another assault on equal rights is “hate crime” laws. The protection supposedly afforded by hate crime laws is restricted to selected classes of citizens. In addition to being discriminatory, these laws are ineffective: providing no value for those shielded, and needlessly confounding our justice system.

The presumption — by politicians and disengaged citizens — that governments have the wisdom to revise the Bill of Rights is frightening. There is no reason to believe that present-day politicians are capable of the reasoned judgment of our founder-statesmen. Instead, recent history raises grave doubts about the government’s competence to manage routine duties, much less to remake our native rights.

But, all is not yet lost: despite the inequality of so-called civil rights laws, we can still exercise some of our constitutional rights. We can worship as we please — so long as it also pleases the government. We can say whatever we want — as long as it isn’t considered (by the government) to be hateful. We can protect ourselves — but only if we “cling” tightly to our guns, and we can attend tea parties, provided our tea cups are smaller than 16 ounces.

We are still free to pursue happiness — if we follow the government-approved path, and if no one tries to go faster or farther than the others. The green energy flowing through our curly-cued, mercury-filled light bulbs shines the way to a government-approved true equality. And, eventually we will all qualify for our own civil rights: but then they wouldn’t be so special would they?

Our rights are inherent; they accompany our citizenship. But they protect us only so long as we defend them. The need to protect one’s rights is not a new concept: in 1790, John Philpot Curran cautioned that, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” We must never allow government to dominate our lives. Thomas Sowell agrees, “If we become a people who are willing to give up our money and our freedom in exchange for rhetoric and promises, then nothing can save us.”