Rights and Wrongs

I agree with this. Food for thought. The rest is at the headline-link.

The Right to Everything

Advocates of the Democrats’ socialized medicine program often speak of the “right” to health care, or more specifically the right to affordable health care or health insurance. This notion of rights bestowed by government is one of the basic tenets of modern liberalism, which is the mirror image of classical liberalism. It is a foundation that should be attacked by the defenders of liberty at every opportunity, because if one concedes this principle, the remaining logic of “soft” tyranny becomes inexorable. This is an argument that conservatives must never grow weary of having, because there will never come a day when it’s unnecessary to make it.

The Left became preoccupied with “positive rights” over the last century. The edifice of socialism is built on the idea that people who lack the necessities of life are not truly “free.” What good is the freedom of speech to someone weak from hunger? What use is the right of free association, when you’re dying of a contagious disease? If you accept the proposition that freedom from want is a pre-requisite for enjoying all other forms of freedom, the modern liberal world-view becomes much easier to understand. It should also be easy to understand why those who believe themselves deprived of those basic necessities would find this an appealing argument.

These “positive rights” are not a precursor to the rights described in the American Constitution. The whole concept is implacably hostile to the Constitution. The “right” to food, health care, a job, or the other staples of the socialist menu can only exist in the absence of individual rights. Most fundamentally, the State can only provide benefits to some by violating the property rights of others.

Where's there's smoke, there's fire

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office

"The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election

until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others."

"The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution."

Where' there's smoke, there's fire. This is not the first court case to allege Obama needs to assuage suspicions that he is not a natural-born citizen and thus not constitutionally qualified to be President. PA, CA, WA, CT and other states have also filed suits. Wonder where this will all lead.

Executive power and the Bush Administration

They are inquiring into the excesses of the executive branch at last, thank God almighty, they're asking at last.

Hearings on on C-Span 1, the House NOW-while "Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) talks to the Washington Journal about today's Judiciary Cmte. hearing on the executive power and the Bush Admin. The hearing is partly based on a single article of impeachment he brought against Pres. Bush, and on alleged misconduct and unlawful expansion of executive power."

Meanwhile, a US court has confirmed Presidential dictatorial powers:

Gitmo "justice" for American citizens?

23/07/08 "ICH" -- - A conservative-dominated U.S. Appeals Court has opened the door for President George W. Bush or a successor to throw American citizens - as well as non-citizens - into a legal black hole by designating them “enemy combatants,” even if they have engaged in no violent act and are living on U.S. soil.

The federal Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled 5-4 on July 15 that Bush had the right, while prosecuting the “war on terror,” to hold Qatari citizen (and Peoria, Illinois, resident) Ali al-Marri indefinitely as an “enemy combatant.”

But some of the court’s more liberal judges expressed alarm, saying the legal reasoning that denied al-Marri meaningful due process not only trampled on American legal traditions but could be used to lock up U.S. citizens as well.