Guilt doesn't eliminate rights
Posted By: AnnuderMT on 2009-06-10
In Reply to: Why would they want to protect him. - sm
There are privileges that can be taken away after being convicted in a court of law, but in our American system of justice, he still maintains his legal rights. Whether we believe we should save the state a lot of money and fry him right now does not really matter. Our American justice system, which is one of the things we tout as making us superior to middle east justice, means that he is entitled to a free trial, where his lawyer will undoubtedly make an insanity defense. In any case, the murderer opening his mouth prejudices his own case, and apparently the prosecuting team wants to make sure this guy does not walk on a technicality.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
he doesn't get any rights
nm
It doesn't SEEM they have more rights, they do!
My town has more illegals than you can shake a stick at. They are very rude, with the exception of a few, they do NOT try to speak English AT ALL. They do not hesitate to go to our ERs with every little thing and hog up the emergency room; I know this to be a fact! They EXPECT medical treatment and will tell you they have a "right" to be seen. NO THEY DON'T!. They have no rights..they are illegal! They spit out one baby after the other at taxpayers' expense and then I pay to raise their children, educate their children (have to hire MORE teachers to accomodate their refusal to speak English), put clothes on their backs and the list goes on and on.
Heck, one family had the gall to show up in my friend's pet shop (mother couldn't speak a word of English). She had her daughter ask everyone where they could get a German Shephard to breed with some mutt they owned. The owner was trying to tell her they didn't encourage that, that there were enough unwanted puppies and that she should have her pet neutered. The woman just smirked, shrugged her shoulders, said something to her daughter, who in turn looked a little embarrased when she told the lady they were free to own as many pets as they wanted and could breed all they wanted.
The lady tried to explain again that there were plenty of unwanted puppies at the shelter if they wanted a puppy but the lady said "In MY country, we are not told to spay/neuter our animals to which the owner replied, "You are not in YOUR country, you are in the U.S."
They lady (who wanted a better life) replied something to "you are all just a bunch of stupid ******". Her daughter was so embarrassed and looked like she could have died but remember it is that attitude that is breeding many illegal children to be raised with OUR dollars in our country.
What the Republicans Want to Eliminate
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html
The House Republican Caucus released a list of 32 items they want eliminated from the $884.5 billion stimulus bill. Fair enough. Add it up: It comes to a total of about $18.7 billion. Now, $18.7 billion is obviously a lot of money, but it's roughly TWO PERCENT (2%) of the total package of $884.5 billion. TWO PERCENT.
That means after combing through the $884.5 billion package and finding 32 specific items they want to eliminate, the House Republicans are okay with 98% of of the Democrats' bill.
Let 'em scream "Pork!!" and "Waste!!" but don't let 'em fool you. The House Republicans are on board with 98% of the bill.
These attorneys do not eliminate taxes owed.
They negotiate penalties and interest on back taxes and try to help their clients with their returns to see if there are any LEGITIMATE deductions they may have missed. BTW, they represent all income groups and their fees are based on a percentage of the amount "recovered" from IRS. They charge a modest retainer fee on the front end.
You can try to guilt.....
the posters on this board but I doubt you will be effective. Jonestown wasn't the only ones who drank 'the Kool-Aid." So did Heaven's Gate. So, it is now a mainstream term and no disrespect is intended to the victims and willing who met this fate. I refuse to be manipulated by others who try to censor my right to free speech.
Not sure about the admitting guilt....
Clinton did not require a pardon because he never went to trial It never went to and wasn't convicted of anything, though we all know he did it. It wasn't pursued after he left office. That should go to show that Republicans do not thirst for revenge, as they are the ones who would have to have done it, liberals obviously would not. That being said...not sure. I never heard that Marc Rich or any of the ones Clinton did the *Hail Mary* pardons for admitted guilt. Perhaps they did; perhaps they didn't. I just don't see how liberals could complain if Libby was pardoned if the Republicans didn't go after Bill after he left office, and they could have. I always wondered why Monica never filed a civil suit. I am thinking either she was afraid for her life or banked a ton of Clinton money. But, that is merely conjecture on my part.
Pardons can be handed out for other reasons too I believe...I don't think the border patrol officers would have to admit guilt because they feel they were wrongly convicted. It could go that way for Libby too...who knows. I can see there are issues...no one went after Judith Miller for conveniently not remembering all her conversations. It is just a mess...
But the point is...Libby didn't leak anything. It was Armitage. And who pulls his strings? We might REALLY be surprised about that one. I would venture that it is not even on the Republican side, but came from the OTHER side to set up some of the administration. Would not be the first time and I certainly would not put it past some of Armitage's old liberal buds with a lot of moveon.org money behind it. How's that for a conspiracy theory this fine evening?
So again we agree to disagree...and...lol...I am NOT even going to go there on the ACLU tonight. Too tired...lol.
Have a good night, Lurker!
I would believe the guilt by association only...
if his policies did not scream Marxist...straight out of black liberation theology. I can see what he hopes for and the change he wants. I don't want a Marxist socialist government. Perhaps you do.
Guilt by association
"…associations with terrorists, criminals, and racist individuals to me is more telling because these are associations and issues that could raise concern during a presidency.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/30572149.html
Racists / terrorists: Republican Sen. John McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. McCain sat on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom. During his tenure (1981 to 1986), the Anti-Defamation League said this organization and its parent organization, the WACL (World Anti-Communist League) "has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites." The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Criminal ties:
1. Charles Keating. Keating was criminally charged with having duped Lincoln's customers into buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; he was convicted in state court in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10-year prison sentence. In January 1993, a federal conviction followed, with a 12-and-a-half year sentence. He spent four-and-a-half years in prison, but convictions were eventually overturned. Thereafter, on the eve of the retrial on the federal charges, Keating pleaded guilty to several felony charges in return for a sentence of time served.
2. McCain appeared at a Oregon Citizens Alliance gathering after Marilyn Shannon had praised Shelley Shannon as a "fine lady." Shannon is an anti-abortion activist, saboteur, rhetorician and sharpshooter from Grants Pass, Oregon. She assaulted Dr. George Tiller outside his abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas on August 19, 1993, shooting him in both arms. She is serving time in FCI Dublin. Her projected release date is November 7, 2018.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_connections_coming_back_to_haunt_1007.html
3. Gordon Liddy, the Watergate break-in mastermind, who spent more than four years in prison for his crimes, has called McCain an "old friend" and hosted the candidate on his conservative talk radio show.
Pardons....admission of guilt...
According to this that I found, they are saying that if you *accept* a pardon, that is an implicit admission of guilt. A person does not have to say formally *yes, I am guilty.*
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year and have granted around ten percent of these, although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II than historically had been the case).
The presidential power of pardons and commutations was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Constitutional Convention. President George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous, recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[1]
It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officialy recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915). However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language - See Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690).
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
Guilt by association. Really wanna go there?
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedom who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m (can you say Iran contra?).
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry.
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
With a little research, I'm sure I could come up with a few more. Wanna go there some more?
White guilt is right. Too many people...
feel they HAVE to say they would vote for Obama for fear of being called racist. If that's the only way he gets into the White House then it's not a true win. He certainly isn't going to get in based on his stellar political career or experience. Flowery words, promises that can't be kept, keep the poor people poor and dependent on the government, screw the middle class and help out your fat cat friends.
White guilt is "pitiful?" Help me out here.
this statement to be just the teensey-weensiest bit tinged with that racism the reds doth vigorously protest is absent in their campaign rhetoric? Am I the only one left in America that finds this deeply offensive? Flame away if you must. I can take it.
Guilt by association? You are kidding, right?
20 years in the church, man was his mentor, baptized his children...that is an "association?"
Excuse me...my compadre? Are you now saying I am guilty of wanting to leave my country because another poster posted on this board THEY might leave?
Good grief, rip a page out of your own book. If he sat there for 20 years and was truly AGAINST racism, then he is a hypocrit at the very LEAST.
It's that guilt-by-association thingy
O haters have been harping away on that matra for months and months and months and more months while trying without success to make all their endless "connections". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Another resounding theme from them has been "judgment" about the company one keeps. SP has condoned her own daughter's marriage into a crack/meth (or whatever drug) house. What is with the pubs' adversion to vetting anyway? It's going to be a bit difficult to pull off that one-big-happy-family image politicians like to project.
Don't be such a hypocrite. The glee O haters take in salivating over imagined scandals is positively palpable. I'm not that excited, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused.
I think the guilt by association thing....(sm)
is ridiculous -- from both sides. That being said, I find it hard to believe that Sarah has never even met the mother of her future son-in-law.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
Run another guilt by association smear campaign
watch that landslide turn into a monster avalanche. Some people never learn.
NEITHER SIDE is 100% free of guilt, 'kay?
White guilt drove the election...
plain and simple. Drones didn't want to be called racist for not voting for him so they jumped on the wagon. Too bad it is going to careen off the cliff with them.
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
Rights
And I have a right to protect myself, my beliefs, my religion my family, and my country. And I will. Did you see us going to them? They have been attacking us forever, not just on 9-11. Check it out and you will find this is true. I guess if we all just lie down and let them take over our country and attack us whenever they feel like it you will be happy. No country worthy of existence is war free. If you have no stomach for wars then knit things and make cookies or something. Maybe you could write a children's book about a perfect society and imagine yourself there. Just wear a blindfold or something and when others strike out at you then you can lie down and let them have at it. Finally, hatred is not "formulated" it is or is not. It is a feeling. It is prejudiced hostility or animosity. No one is without prejudice, just look at your own point of view versus mine. It is a human thing, hatred. The world is filled with humans, so it follows that hatred will occur along with all other human emotions, feelings, failings and triumphs.
what about his rights?
x
If your rights were to be taken away...(sm)
would you be sick of hearing that too?
Who is assigning rights?
Certainly not you with any credibility. If I lie I expect to be castigated over it because lying is immoral and demonstrates a weak and selfish character. Likewise if I KNOW someone else is a liar I will not fail to rebuke them - it is in fact wrong not to do so. Note also in the midst of your misdirected and uninformed tizzy that no names were mentioned. The liar knows who she is and you don't know, unless of course it's you. If so, change your ways. If not, look for better things to be indignant about - say, corporate oligarchies and the men and women dying in the streets to bring them obscene profits.
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
The child has no rights?
Have you viewed the video referenced below? Do you really think abortion should be a method of birth control?
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
Get a grip...........they have the same rights everyone
--
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
Lincoln and civil rights
Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.
Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.
The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
Civil Rights Act voting
Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.
As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Abortion is for men, not reproductive rights
Men can do as they please s*xually and have no long term consequences. If you are pro-choice or pro-life either one it's so clear it's for men NOT for women. Especially when you see how many adult men are bringing in teenager girls to the clinic. Abortion is another way to allow men to use women without consequences to them like responsibility.
Why not exercise responsibility with your rights?
In this day of myriad methods of birth control, there is absolutely no reason for 1.2 million abortions a year. It has grown from endangering life of mother, rape and incest to why bother with birth control, if I get pregnant I can have it flushed. It is amazing to me that any person with a heart in their chest is not appalled by that.
And a great contributor to this has been the gradual relaxation of any kind of moral responsibility...no right or wrong, only shades of gray, no consequences, sex introduced to kids earlier and earlier and earlier, not even allowing them to be kids...saying sex is fine, multiple partners is fine, heck, you don't even have to like the other person.
We are reaping what that kind of lifestyle change has sown.
No rights? They have the right to step up to the plate.
They have the right to support their child. Unfortunately, mother nature did not give them the capacity to bear children. What they do not have the right to do is to force a woman to be their own personal incubator against her will. If they do not want to be stripped of their reproductive rights, perhaps they should take their own measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies (condoms, vasectomy) or practice abstinence and keep their pants zipped.
Yeah and to he** with the baby's rights.
Not a person worthy of my trust. Your trust is yours to give to whoever. Have a nice day.
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?.....sm
Does America Need a New Bill of Rights?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By Col. Oliver North
Pierre, S.D. — My son and I are on ground where one of my heroes –- the legendary Joe Foss, U.S. Marine, America's leading ace in aerial combat, Medal of Honor recipient, mentor and friend -– once stood beside me. We're hunting –- and exercising our Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." We will be back home in time to vote in hopes that this "right of the people" won't be "infringed." But I wonder.
Last week in Ohio, the Obama for President Campaign suggested that Americans need a "second Bill of Rights." The idea –- not a new one for liberals –- came this time from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, as she introduced Senator Obama at a rally in Toledo. Congressman Kaptur enthusiastically endorsed the initiative –- first proffered by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Senator Obama said nothing to disabuse his enthusiastic followers of the notion. It was a bad idea when FDR advocated it -– and it is now.
President Roosevelt made the proposal in his State of the Union address –- delivered over the radio from the White House -– instead of in person before Congress. He claimed that he had "the flu" and that his doctors would not permit him "to go up to the Capitol." The nation was then –- as we are today -– at war. And FDR –- the "indispensable leader" –- was already preparing for his 4th presidential campaign.
In promoting his new "Bill of Rights," Mr. Roosevelt observed that we already enjoyed "certain inalienable political rights –- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." He then said, "They were our rights to life and liberty." Notably, FDR used the past tense and omitted the Second Amendment in its entirety -– no small lapse when nearly 16 million Americans were under arms.
Unfortunately, the idea that our original Bill of Rights is inadequate –- or even archaic –- has achieved new currency with liberals. In enumerating his abbreviated version of the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, FDR described our rights as "political" and insufficient. The framers saw them as God-given and a sacred trust to deliver unabridged to future generations.
Therein is the challenge in next week's elections. The mainstream media and the polls predict a rout to the left. Does that mean Congress would have free reign to resurrect FDR's "second Bill of Rights"? And, if so, what then happens to the real Bill of Rights -– first handed into our care on December 15, 1791?
The practitioners of politics –- and those who write and speak about it –- claim that these matters are secondary to "pocketbook issues." I was told this week that, "Nobody in America cares about that 'Constitutional stuff' right now with all that's gone wrong with our economy." If that's true, we're in more serious trouble than my 401(k).
Perhaps I have spent too much of my life with young Americans who sacrificed the comforts of home and the company of loved ones to take on the responsibility of protecting the rest of us. They didn't sign up to fight for gold or colonial conquest or "the economy." The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have been covering for the FOX News Channel in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Philippine Archipelago volunteered to defend us and protect our liberty from those who had done us grievous harm.
They raised their right hands and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." They understand what it means to "bear true faith and allegiance." Most of them have seen parts of the world where there is no freedom and they know that freedom is an idea worth fighting for -– preferably at great distance from home.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of young Americans in uniform -– and those who preceded them -– foreign adversaries do not immediately threaten our liberty. But freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our essential freedoms are "political rights." If that is true, then politicians –- and the judges they appoint -– can abridge, alter or eliminate them.
The extraordinary dedication, commitment and tenacity of American men and women in uniform serving the cause of freedom inspires me. Their bravery and perseverance on battlefields around the world should remind us all that freedom is fragile and must be defended to flourish. The Bill of Rights –- including the Second Amendment -– did not come to us gratis or without obligation.
We are blessed in America that we can fend for freedom with ballots instead of bullets. Our charge is to elect those who will deliver those freedoms, intact and undiminished, to those who follow us -– as my son and I now follow in the footsteps of Joe Foss.
Oliver North hosts War Stories on FOX News Channel and is the author of the new best-seller, "American Heroes: In The War Against Radical Islam." He has just returned from assignment in Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445386,00.html
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Good for her, they could use some women's rights over there.
xx
You in your view civil rights don't mean anything? (sm)
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.
So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?
In a country that is still free for now, we have rights
nm
yes, I will explain human rights to you now sm
Barack Obama has announced that he will close Guantanamo. Throughout the world, this announcement will be understood as an introduction to a new kind of American leadership, a repudiation of the unilateralism of the Bush administration, and a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.
Closing Guantanamo will be a complicated process, which must be accomplished in phases. But the first step clearly is the settlement of the 50 or 60 detainees who have been cleared for release but have nowhere to go. These men have been called the “Guantanamo refugees.” Some of these men are stateless, but most of them simply can’t be returned to their home countries because their lives would be in danger there.
A number of European countries have recently indicated a willingness to take in some of the Guantanamo refugees. But the U.S. must also take some of them.
A group of 17 ethnic Uyghurs from western China have been at Guantanamo almost since its opening. From very early on, they were known to be innocent. In September 2008, a federal court officially cleared them of “enemy combatant” status. In October, Federal Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered them released into the U.S, where Uyghur-American families were waiting to take them in. Justice Department lawyers obtained a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was briefed and argued in late November. The Government argued that only the President has the power to order the transfer of detainees and their release into the U.S. The appeal has not yet been decided by the Court. As President, Obama should either dismiss the appeal and comply with Judge Urbina’s order or exercise his power as President to bring the Uyghurs to the U.S.
Human rights is getting way twisted
I go by the Bible and a much higher authority.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Fighting for your parental rights
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=412082
Civil union rights.
"If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?"
I understand your point.
But why, then, is so important for same-sex couples to use the word "marriage" if - as you pointed out - it's just a word.
Why aren't people fighting to have all the rights of marriage applied to civil unions? Seems to me that, while most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans are actually FOR civil unions.
I hate to ask this but just what "special" rights is
the homosexual community demanding?
Equal rights to you people is when
you get YOUR way and to he!! with whatever majority group doesn't like it or doesn't believe in it. That is your idea of equal rights.
|
