From where do our Rights originate?

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words, from the Declaration of Independence, declared and signed July 4, 1776, illustrate precisely from where the Rights of man originate.
Rights are given by God. Or, to put it secularly, these are Natural Rights. These are Rights which are inherent, by virtue of man’s very humanity, an elementary human condition. Rights from the Creator, God, or Natural Rights, are unchangeable, unalterable, and eternal. These rights exist apart from man, yet are a part of man. They cannot be bestowed by man. This is what the writers of the Declaration and the Founders of our country understood: All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Whether you believe man is created by God, or that man evolved, these rights are natural and inherent. This is what most Americans also understand.
By contrast, the philosophy of many modern liberals, Progressives, Statists, is that rights are bestowed from man, to man. Or, more specifically, from government unto the governed.
Hence, we see President Obama viewing the Constitution is a charter of negative rights allowanced by government. In the controversial 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, he speaks about “constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” In this context he is speaking about the concept of redistribution of wealth, when during the civil rights movement the Constitution did not allow the Supreme Court to advance the concept of a right to “economic justice.” This is instructive of a general philosophy regarding the Constitution and the general philosophy of Statists and Progressives that rights are bestowed by government unto the governed.
He continues, “Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He objects to be the limits the governed place on their government. The writers of the Declaration understood that government must be permitted by the governed: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Obama believes the Constitution restricts what government must do for you, or give to you. Notice the words on your behalf. By emphasizing the responsibility of government over the governed, he shifts responsibility for the endowment of rights from God, or nature, to government, or man. The question then, is what rights can government allow? Or, in other words, what rights can man allow?
To phrase it more instructively, then, these rights are no longer rights, but privileges to be given or to be taken by the will and whim of government. The governed are disempowered, while government is obligated to provide.
Again, this is the philosophical difference; that rights are given from man, to man. Or, by extension, from better man, to lesser man. Government, being the better, bestows rights unto the governed, the lesser.
By this reasoning, the modern liberal concept of “classes” is clearer. Candidates campaign on promises to tax only the rich. Politicians promise to provide free or cheap health care for the uninsured. They implicitly promise to punish the privileged and recompense the underprivileged. The concept of redistribution of wealth is purported as reparative and righteous “economic justice.” Contemplate recent hate crime legislation. Instead of all crimes being criminal, some are categorized according to a “protected class” of person.
Class envy, class warfare, proletariat versus bourgeoisie, these are pretexts to classification, separation and subjugation. A sort of apartheid in the guise of compassion for the weak, underprivileged, underrepresented, or oppressed.
Our God given natural rights are repealed by men under the pretense of empathy.