Why is this something new or surprising?

Where do Natural Rights “come from”? Not necessarily God, though one could argue for that — no, they are inherent in the design of the Universe and in the design of Life itself. If you accept the notion that God created the universe and life, then they derive from God, but disbelief in that possible precursor does not negate the antecedent.

Natural Rights are those inherent rules.

This is a crucially important CSPAN special about the great dangers of our current economic mess:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311904-1

Pay particular attention to (the passionately angry) David Stockman, former WH Budget Director under Reagan, and author of THE GREAT DEFORMATION: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.

He makes a blisteringly clear analysis of the whole TARP debacle (etc.), and he and David Walker (former US Comptroller General) are furious with both parties and the widespread economic illiteracy and galloping greed in the plutocracy.

David Walker, former US Comptroller General, joins him. Both are IRATE.

The talk was to the economic reporters of various news outlets: whose questions at the end are revealing.

Well worth watching the whole thing: I couldn’t turn it off.

Actually, my use of the “in” preface rather than the “un” preface is the form of the word that Obama has repeatedly used (“inalienable” rather than “unalienable”). If you follow my link in the PJ article (on the words “repeated tendency”) it leads to an article that discusses Obama’s repeated use of the word (he did not use it in his Denver speech, but he’s quoted it quite a few other times, minus the “Creator” part). You’ll see that he usually has quoted the word as “inalienable” rather than “unalienable.” I agree that in the article it looks like I’m referring to the Declaration of Independence’s use of the word, and I was. But I should have made it clearer that I was using the form Obama uses rather than the form the Declaration uses. The words have the exact same definition and mean the exact same thing, if you look them up, but “in” is indeed a slightly different form of the word.

unalienable.

Good one!