Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2016
McAuliffe to sign order restoring rights to 206,000 felons
(Hat tip: KimR) - Gov. Terry McAuliffe this morning will sign an order that effectively restores the civil rights, including the right to vote, of more than 200,000 felons in Virginia. Read more at the Richmond Times-Dispatch
Read More......
Labels:
felons,
rights,
Terry McAuliffe,
Virginia
Friday, February 5, 2016
People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
Read more at thebaynet.com
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
Read more at thebaynet.com
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
Labels:
2nd Amendment,
assault weapons,
guns,
rights
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Why I’ll Celebrate The Fourth Of July Differently This Year
“In America, the streets are paved with gold. You can buy any fruit you want any time of the year without standing in line. You can be anything you want to be.” These were things my parents told me to lull me back into submission whenever I had reservations about coming to America. Even after we came, if I complained about living here, the response was: “Would you rather be back in Iraq where your dad would be forced to go to war, possibly get killed? Would you rather not have school options?” The land of justice. The land where Christians don’t get hurt. The promised land. A land flowing with… everything supersize.
Read more at The Federalist
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
Read more at The Federalist
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
Labels:
celebrate,
Independence Day,
rights,
Supreme Court
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Civic Ignorance On Display
Many stories have already been written about CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s embarrassing historical gaffe when he told a judge: “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.” Of course, American governing documents state exactly the opposite.
But what has not been adequately covered is why Cuomo might make such a statement.
Read more at the American Family Association
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
But what has not been adequately covered is why Cuomo might make such a statement.
Read more at the American Family Association
(Hat tip: KimR) Read More......
Labels:
civics,
David Barton,
rights
Thursday, December 11, 2014
NYT: Poll Finds That More Americans Back Gun Rights Than Stronger Controls
Two years after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than for the government to limit access to firearms, a Pew Research Center survey conducted this month found. The center said that it was the first time in two decades of its surveys on attitudes about firearms that a majority of Americans had expressed more support for gun ownership rights than for gun control.
Read more at the New York Times Read More......
Read more at the New York Times Read More......
Labels:
gun control,
protection,
rights
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Patriot Day Screening in Corvallis: Last Ounce of Courage
Movie: Last Ounce of Courage
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Showtime: 7:00 p.m.
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas
1750 N.W. 9th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330 (Map)
Phone: 541-928-7469
(Holiday, Drama)
Rated PG, (101 minutes)
Nationwide Release date: Sept. 14th
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas (Corvallis)
Showtimes: 1:15pm, 4:00pm, 7:00pm, 9:40pm Read More......
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Showtime: 7:00 p.m.
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas
1750 N.W. 9th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330 (Map)
Phone: 541-928-7469
(Holiday, Drama)
Rated PG, (101 minutes)
Nationwide Release date: Sept. 14th
Theater: Regal Ninth Street 4 Cinemas (Corvallis)
Showtimes: 1:15pm, 4:00pm, 7:00pm, 9:40pm Read More......
Labels:
movie,
patriotism,
rights
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberals plot to ‘Turn off Fox News’ in public places
Say you are ‘drinking liberally’ in a bar and out of the corner of your eye, an insidious FOX logo keeps floating across the screen. ∴ Yeah, you could ask the bartender to change the channel, but why not convince the manager to ban the Fox News channel altogether? Read more about this plot to silence Fox News at the San Francisco Examiner...
Read More......
Labels:
1st Amendment,
Fox News,
free-speech,
liberalism,
rights
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Political rights distinct from natural rights
AMERICAN THINKER, 4/3/2010 by Geoffrey P. Hunt - Who Will Guarantee ObamaCare Rights When the Duty-Bound Refuse? [...] Since the post-WWII period, duties as the enabler of rights have been conveniently and deliberately dismissed or harnessed only to a fading minority. The most expensive newly created rights have been of the social contract entitlement variety, imposed by unelected judges, executive orders, or one-party votes. ObamaCare is the latest, most dramatic expansion of rights-centric social contract provisions for beneficiaries who shoulder none of the burdens. These newly created health care rights with sweeping social welfare giveaways for a few are also accompanied by diminished rights for the many -- most acutely, confiscation of property, loss of due process, and diminished personal liberty. Read more at American Thinker...
Read More......
Labels:
duties,
duty,
honor,
natural rights,
Obamacare,
political rights,
rights
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Truth About the House Health Care Bill
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney, reviews House Health Care Bill (Hat tip: Jean Nelson/via email)
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in th e Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas Read More......
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney, reviews House Health Care Bill (Hat tip: Jean Nelson/via email)
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in th e Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas Read More......
Labels:
Bill of Rights,
government,
healthcare,
infringement,
reform,
rights,
takeover,
U.S. Constitution
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Heritage Foundation: Property and the Pursuit of Happiness
Recommended article by Representative Michele Bachmann (R-6th District of Minnesota), U.S. Congress:
Property and the Pursuit of Happiness - The words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness embody the spirit of the American founding better than any others. They evoke images of American patriots taking a sacred oath to lay aside their own rights as patrician property owners to give birth to a nation in which everyone would have such opportunities, regardless of birth or station." ∴ It may seem passé in this age of Twitter and texting, but a brief examination of these first phrases of our founding document is worth doing now more than ever." Read more HERE...Read More......
Labels:
politics,
Rep. Michele Bachmann,
rights,
U.S. Constitution
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
CNET, 8/28/2009 - Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. ∴ They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. ∴ The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. Read more at CNet...
Read More......
The New Republic: America's Future Recap
GLENN BECK, 8/24-28/2009 - All week on radio and TV Glenn asked the tough questions -- because our republic is being transformed before our very eyes. The time for silent dissent has long passed, and now the hard questions need to be asked. Maybe there are perfectly logical explanations for Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force' he wants funded as well as the military. But what is it? Who are the radical Czars in the White House, and why are they there? Does the President actually listen to Communist ideas? Here is the ENTIRE RECAP of this weeks shows -- the monologues, the questions, the amazing interview with Rush Limbaugh and more. Please, read it and pass it around to all of your friends. These questions need to be asked and answered. Get started! Read more at GlennBeck.com...
Read More......
Friday, February 1, 2008
What does the 2nd Amendment mean?
Question: Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms? Vote by clicking the link: USA Today 2nd Amendment Poll
Read More......
Labels:
2nd Amendment,
gun,
rights,
U.S. Constitution
Thursday, June 7, 2007
"We are here to stay."
From the Grand Old Partisan, June 7, 2007
In a first for either major political party, on this day in 1892 two women -- Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton -- attended the Republican National Convention, as alternate delegates from Wyoming. Speaking at the convention, J. Ellen Foster, president of the Women's National Republican Association, declared: "We are here to help you. And we have come to stay."Read More......
Labels:
politics,
Republicans,
rights,
women
Sunday, May 27, 2007
In case Magaña runs again

In 2006 Mario E. Magaña (D), associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at OSU, challenged Sen. Frank Morse (R-Incumbent) for the Dist. 8 Oregon State senate seat but failed. In case the professor runs for elected office again, it might be instructive to keep this OSU Barometer forum exchange on hand for a glimpse into Magaña’s rather smug outlook.
Political science senior, Lyndsey Shaver, wrote a letter to the editor (4/26/07 Issue of The Barometer) critical of an anti-violence rally held on the OSU campus following the Virginia Tech shooting where 32 innocent students lost their lives. Among other points, Shaver advocated rethinking the ‘right to carry’ ban on the VT campus. He wrote, “...work to give students the KNOWLEDGE and ABILITY to PROTECT THEMSELVES.”
Professor Magaña had every right to disagree with the Shaver opinion (only one opinion regarding VT on Thursday) but let’s look at how he did this in his 5/1/07 letter (h/t: Reece).
Response to last Thursday's letters - Use your brainDo we need more elitist's looking down their noses at 'the little people'? I don't think so. See also Was Cho Taught to Hate? Read More......
In the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, I find it very hard to believe that college students, who in principle are supposed to be capable of performing minimally complex thinking, can express such absurd and ludicrous ideas, and even have the audacity of justifying them with arguments worthy of small minds.
Minimal analysis of the speed of motion of a projectile launched by a fire arm should lead to the inescapable conclusion that no human being is capable of outpacing it. Moreover, with today's modern semi and automatic weapons, which can be obtained legally even by the mentally deficient, can release projectiles at an incredibly high rate and the probability of multiple targets (humans) being hit in a very short period of time is extremely high. The idea that the best way to protect ourselves is by having everyone carry a gun is laughable at best, unless we are willing to live in a society "a la OK Corral".
After reading these letters, I also decided to take a close look at the famous second amendment to see if I could arrive at the same conclusion as those who claim that the founding fathers could foresee the future (perhaps with a crystal ball) and figured that the parameters of that era would remain unchanged after more than two hundred years! Unfortunately, regardless of how much I tried to bring myself down to their level of mental development, I could not!
The proponents of such irrational and illogical thinking that support uncontrolled gun possession should take a look at countries such as Spain and Germany to educate themselves about sensible gun ownership laws. The fact that we live in the most violent society earth today does not mean that we have accept it and keep it that way.
-Prof. Mario E. Magaña
School of EECS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








.jpg)
