Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

     Featured
· Home
· Downloads
· Stories_Archive
· Top
· Topics

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Unalienable
V
Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule


     Random Headlines

Gun Rights
[ Gun Rights ]

·Gun Confiscation (The Termite Approach)- Call your Senator T O D A Y !!!
·Common Sense Gun Law in Utah
·Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law
·Waterside -because of the City's financial interest in the mall, the mall is con
·DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER Second Amendment Reborn
·Gun Rights to Face Supreme Court's EYE

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file

read more...

     GENDER EQUALITY
·404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /service/newsfeed.php was not found on this server.

" target="new">404 Not Found


read more...

Contact Us

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

P.O. Box 65002
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23467-5002
Telephone 757-818-8003
Fax 757.282.2543
E-Mail UnalienableRights@uarf.us

Purpose of the Unalienable Rights Foundation

New Page 1 The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Purposes

of the

Unalienable Rights Foundation

A

Virginia Nonstock Corporation

This Foundation was founded in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense of unalienable rights, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, promote freedom, property rights, civil rights, constitutional guaranteed rights in the Constitutions of the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia and its sister states, The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies as approved in the CONGRESS of the United States of America on July 4, 1776 - this also being known and referred to as The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union as affirmed by the Congress of The United States of America on July 9th, 1778 and any and all Matters arising therefrom or in any way or manner related thereto: and  To Continue - MORE


 Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

Supreme Court To Be Heard

Do states have a right to secede from the union? The issue is generating some debate on blogs after Texas Gov. Rick Perry told a "tea party" rally that Texans could get so fed up with big government that they may some day seek that option.

It turns out that Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in with his views, in a letter to a legal blogger’s screenwriting brother. Scalia tackled the constitutional question (there is no right to secede, he says) as well as the possibility of a Supreme Court showdown over the issue (don’t count on it).

Lawyer Eric Turkewitz explained the genesis of the letter at his New York Personal Injury Law Blog. Turkewitz says his brother, Dan, wrote to all the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court asking about the right to secede. Scalia was the only one to reply.

The screenwriter was working on a political farce in 2006 about Maine seceding from the United States, and he envisioned a Supreme Court showdown.

Justice Scalia didn’t side with Maine.

“I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court,” Scalia wrote. “To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. … Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the state suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

Scalia goes on to say he is sure that “poetic license” can overcome the legal issues.


Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement.

As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice Antonin Scalia that is directly on point as to the legitimacy of secession. How he got that letter, and its contents, are the subject of today's post.

The inspiration for writing, and the release of the letter, comes from Prof. Eugene Volokh, who wrote, "I keep hearing the claim that the legitimacy of secession from the U.S. was 'settled at Appomattox,' and I wanted to say a few words about why I think that makes little sense."

The good prof goes on to write that, while clearly not supporting secession of any State in concept, that the issue is far from settled. He writes:
If in 2065 Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas (just to consider some examples) assert a right to secede, the argument that "in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right" will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it -- which should be very little.
Thus far, that post has generated 152 comments.

Well prof, Justice Scalia disagrees with you. Explicitly. Why did he do so in a letter to my brother? Glad you asked.

Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.

Bro was well ahead of the tea partiers in contemplating impending problems as we racked up massive debt. This doesn't get him an agent or a foot in the door of Hollywood to get his screenplays made into films -- it isn't what you write, but who you know -- but it does make him a prophet of sorts.

So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O'Connor) with this request:
I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.

My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.
I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally. Explicitly rejecting the right to secede:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

So there you have it. At least one vote solidly on record as saying that there is no right to secede. And it likely comes from a place the right wing secessionists most wanted to have a vote.

And yes, Dan still needs an agent. Because writing great scripts isn't enough if you don't know The Powers That Be on the other coast. And, for what it's worth, his now-completed script of Maine joining Canada is better than his award-winning one about a mis-adventure in space.

Posted by david on Friday, February 19 @ Eastern Standard Time (1 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Commonwealth Attorney Guilty of Malfeasance

Freedom of Information [Project FOIA]

HAMPTON - - The president of the Unalienable Rights Foundation (UARF) has accused the Hampton Commonwealth's Attorney of illegal activity in operation of her office by failing to enforce the state's conflict of interest law (COIA).

These violations, said David Lindsey, of UARF, involve both current and former members and employees of the Hampton Roads Transit Authority.

Lindsey, releasing documents he's exchanged with Commonwealth's Atty. Linda Curtis, told her, …"under Virginia Code § 2.2-3126.B. Articles 3, ". . .The attorney for the Commonwealth shall provide a copy of this act to all local officers and employees in the jurisdiction served by such attorney who are required to file a disclosure statement pursuant to Article 5 (§ 2.2-3113 et seq.) of this chapter."

Curtis told Lindsey, "In Hampton, the Clerk of Council shall, in writing, after consultation with the Attorney for the Commonwealth, annually advise all appropriate elected and appointed officials of their responsibilities under the Conflict of Interests Act and send therewith a current copy of the Act (Code of Va. 2.2-3100, et seq.) and the appropriate forms, and shall also refer questions to the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney."

Lindsey said her explanation does not comply with the law. Even if she could delegate the responsibility to the city's clerk, she doesn't get and keep copies of the documents. Therefore, she has no way of knowing who has complied with the law and who she needs to compel to make the required disclosures.

Without Curtis having a list of whom she sent notices to and what forms they are required to file on file and then comparing that list to the list of those individuals who have returned completed disclosure forms to the Hampton city clerk, Curtis has not way to determine what members of council and various boards, commissions, and authorities, by state law are ineligible to hold office.

He wrote: "These individuals employed by the authority have overseen and maybe currently overseeing projects that run and will run in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars and currently these projects have known cost over runs in excess of one hundred thirty five million dollars.

These individuals are prohibited [The members of the governing body of any authority established in any county or city, or part or combination thereof, and having the power to issue bonds or expend funds in excess of $10,000 in any fiscal year, shall file, as a condition to assuming office, a disclosure statement of their personal interests and other information as is specified on the form set forth in § 2.2-3118 and thereafter shall file such a statement annually on or before January 15, unless the governing body of the jurisdiction that appoints the members requires that the members file the form set forth in § 2.2-3117. Virginia Code § 2.2-3115.A.Art.2] from working in the capacity they worked in until such time as they filed the disclosures."

This failure the law states appears to be proof that several …"class 1 misdemeanors, class 4 and 6 felonies have been committed by these individuals and the individuals the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), your office.

Lindsey said, "Due to what appears to me to be conflicts of interest in this matter that involves your office and the penalties associated with those conflicts and the related violations of law which appear to expand those conflict of interest I will pass on copies of all documents that I have to the Virginia Attorney General [VAG] and the United States Attorney [USATTY] that relate to these violations."

Lindsey concluded, "Take notice that UARF and Lindsey will deem your failure to reply within the statutory time of five (5) days to be a denial of our request and will seek enforcement of our request by filing a petition for writ of mandamus and/or injunction under Virginia Code Section 2.2-3127, including requests for attorneys’ fees and cost for enforcing our rights under FOIA, of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

"Take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly."

Lindsey, although the state law does not require him to be represented by a lawyer, has been represented on the Peninsula by one of the state's top trial lawyers, Tim Hankins.

He also has called in the past on a Internet network of legal staff who work pro bono on public interest cases.


Posted by david on Thursday, February 18 @ Eastern Standard Time (2 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Citizens United v. FEC - Federalist Society Debate

Executive Secretary and General Counsel
Citizens United v. FEC

On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  The Court struck down as inconsistent with the First Amendment a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regarding independent expenditures by corporations that the FEC had said would forbid the airing of advertisements about a documentary about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United sought to air during the 2008 primary season.

 
To discuss this case, we have the Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Designated Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Professor Edward B. Foley and the Josiah H. Blackmore II & Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, Professor Bradley A. Smith. To moderate the discussion, we have Supreme Court advocate and Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group Executive Committee member Erik S. Jaffe
 
To listen to the debate, click HERE.

Posted by david on Sunday, January 24 @ Eastern Standard Time (3 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 A FRONT-ROW VIEW OF JUSTICE FOR NEW YORK

UnAlienable Rights A FRONT-ROW VIEW OF JUSTICE FOR NEW YORK

OP-ED

THE VIRGINIAN PILOT 11.29.2009

 PAGE 11

A FRONT-ROW VIEW OF JUSTICE FOR NEW YORK

By DAVID ASHE

by permission of the Author

DURING THE recent Nor’easter blackout, my neighbor’s house was burglarized when he left for an hour to buy ice. As we chatted about it, we both agreed that the crime had an extra sting because for most of us, a storm means a chance to bond and come together as neighbors. For an infinitesimal few of us, it’s a chance for money and crime. He mentioned that when he spoke with the police he asked, "If you catch the guys who did this, any chance I could get five minutes with them?"

Who wouldn’t have that natural desire for a front-row view of justice? A victim-criminal stare-down in a courtroom is appropriate and classically American. My neighbor deserves it with his burglar. And our country, especially New Yorkers, deserve it as we try terrorists.

When I first heard that the Guantanamo trials may take place in New York, I was encouraged by two things: 1) The trials would actually move forward and 2) those accused of starting this war would be brought before the very people they first attacked. Whether in a federal court or in a relocated tribunal, this is the opportunity our military tribunal teams have needed for years.

No trial attorney hears the phrase "speedy trial" without breaking a sweat. From the moment a defendant is in custody, the speedy trial clock starts, and judges don’t let it stop. It delivers a dose of reality to the defendants who try to grandstand, but more importantly, prosecutors use the loud ticking to demand the resources they need and to secure a place on priority lists with supporting agencies. At the end of the day, we have peace of mind about our courts because we know that even the worst defendant was given a fast, fair opportunity to defend before we locked the cell for good.

Generally, there is nothing inappropriate about military tribunals for wartime detainees. At the end of World War II, the Nuremberg trials were authorized by specific provisions in the instrument of surrender. Trials began within 90 days of V-J Day, and the top 22 Nazi criminals were convicted before Thanksgiving of 1946. The Tokyo trials were drafted separately from the document we signed on the USS Missouri, but more than 5,700 defendants were brought to trial in three years. The key was speedy trial. At Nuremberg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson left the bench to lead the prosecution team, and on those trials he made the key imprint of American justice: Fair trials are expeditious trials.


Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, January 12 @ Eastern Standard Time (3 reads)
(Read More... | 5986 bytes more | Score: 0)

 The Scottish Declaration of Independence

Organic Documents

I will repest this again and again for nay sayers.....READ the Scottish Dec of Indep. which DOES speak of their Israelite Heritages.......This is an OLD Document......one should check it out. You will be well pleased you did.

The Declaration Arbroath, Scottish Independence 1320

Robert the Bruce and his pledge to the nation. The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

To our Lord and Very Holy Father in Christ, Lord John, He Supreme Pontiff, by God´s Providence, of the Most Holy Roman and Catholic Church, his humble and devoted sons - here follow the names of the Nobles and Commons in Parliament assembled and other barons and freeholders, with the whole Commons of the Kingdom of Scotland. With all filial reverence devoutly do we kiss your blessed feet.

From the deeds alike and the books of our forefathers, we understand, most Holy Lord and Father, that among other noble nations our own, He Scottish, grows famous for many men of wide renown. The which Scottish nation, journeying from Greater Scythia by the Tyrrhene Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, could not in any place or time or manner be overcome by the barbarians, though long dwelling in Spain among the fiercest of them.

Coming thence, twelve hundred years after the transit of Israel, with many victories and with many toils they won that habitation in the West, which, though the Britons have been driven out, the Picts effaced, and Norwegians, Danes and English have often assailed it, they hold now, in freedom from all vassalage: and as the old historians bear witness, have ever so held it. In this kingdom have reigned a hundred and thirteen kings of their own Blood Royal, and no foreign has been among them. Of their merits and their noble Qualities we need say no more, for they are bright enough by this alone, that through they were placed in the furthest ends of the earth, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the King of Kings, called them among the first to His most firm faith, after His Passion and His Resurrection. Nor did he choose to confirm them in the Lord´s Faith by any one less than His own first Apostle (although he stands second or third in order of rank) the most gracious Andrew brother of Peter´s self, whom ever since he has established their Patron.

Bearing all these things carefully in mind, those holiest of fathers, Cour predecessors, adorned and fortified this kingdom and people, as belonging specially to Peter´s brother, with many favours and many privileges. Thus our nation till now has lived under their protection in peace and quiet, till the Magnificent Prince, Edward King of the English, the father of the Eward that now is, did, under cover of alliance and friendship, invade and occupy as an enemy our kindom and people, who then had no head, who had in mind no evil towards him, and who then were unused to war or sudden invasion. What that king has done in wrongs and slaughter and violence, in imprisoning of the leaders of the church, in burning and looting of religious houses and the massacre of their communities, with his other outrages on the Scottish people (sparing nor sex nor age nor priestly orders) is something that is not to be comprehended save by those who know these things from their own experience.

Yet at last, by His help Who heals and sains the wounded, we are freed from these innumerable evils by our most valiant Sovereign, King, and Lord, King Robert, who to set free his heritage and his people, like a new Maccabaeus or Joshua, with joyful heart, toil, weariness, hardship, and dangers. By the Providence of God, the right of succession, those laws and customs which we are resolved to defend even with our lives, and by our own just consent, he is our King: and to him who has brought salvation to his people through the safeguarding of our liberties, as much by his own deserving as by his rights, we hold and choose in all things to adhere. Yet Robert himself, should he turn aside from the task that he has begun, and yield Scotland or us to the English King and people, we should cast out as the enemy of us all, as a subverter of our rights and of his own, and should choose another king to defend our freedom: for so long as a hundred of us are left alive, we will yield in no least way to English dominion. We fight not for glory nor for waelth nor honours; but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life.

Because of these things, most reverend Father and Lord, praying earnestly from our hearts that before Him as Whose Vicar on Earth you reighn, before him to whom there is but a single weight, Who has one law for Jew and Greek and for Scots and English - before Him will with honestly consider the manifold anguish and tribulation which we and the Church have suffered through the English, and will look upon us with a father´s eyes. We pray you to admonish the King of England (to whom his own possessions may well suffice, since England of old was enough for seven Kings or more) that he should leave us in peace in our little Scotland, since we desire no more that is our own, and have no dwelling-place, are willing to do all within our power. Most Holy Father, it is Cour part to do this, or surrender to the barbarity of the heathen, let loose for the sins of Christian on the Faithful, and daily forcing the bounds of Christendom, and you know it would mar the security of your fame if you looked unmoved on anything which in your time should bring dishonour on any part of the Church. May Your Holiness therefore admonish those Christian princes who falsely claim that their own wars with their neighbours now hinder them from relieving the Holy Land: though indeed they are hindered only by their belief that they will find more profit and less toil in crushing neighbours smaller than themselves, who appear to them also weaker than themselves. He who knows that if the King of the English would leave us in peace, we and our own Lord King would go joyfully thither: which thing solemnly testify and declare to Vicar of Christ and to all Christian people. But if too readily, or insincerely, you put your faith in what the English have told you, and continue to favour them, to our confounding, then indeed shall slaying of bodies, yea and of souls, and all those evils which they shall do to us, or we to them, be charged to your account by the Most High.

We are always bound to you, as God´s Viceregent, to please you by a son´s obedience in all things. We remit our cause to the Highest King and Judge, casting our care on Him, in the hope and faith that He will grant to us both strength and valour, and bring about our enemies´ overthrow.

May the Most High preserve for many years Your Serene Highness to His Holy Church.

Given at the Monastry of Arbroath in Scotland the 6th day of April in the year of our Grace 1320, and in the 15th year of the King named above.


Posted by david on Saturday, December 12 @ Eastern Standard Time (6 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

US Supreme Court Recent Cases

Currently there is a problem with headlines from this site

Tell Us About the Horrors of Your Divorce

the horrors you faced in family court

Tell us about the horrors you faced in family court.   Tell us about the problems you had with property settlement, child support, alimony   and custody issues as it related to your separation or divorce.  

A fit parent''s right to his children and a person''s right to private property are two of the oldest-recognized natural or unalienable rights.  These rights protect individuals from government intrusion in their most intimate relationships (parent-child) and possessions (home).  They preserve the sanctity of the family and the home.
 
Unfortunately, the American family and the American home are both under government assault.  When the United States Supreme Court announced its Kelo decision just a few years ago, the public suddenly realized government has almost unbridled power to take their homes.  The public did not realize government has even greater power to take their children.  Because the United States Supreme Court (or any federal court) rarely hears family law cases, these cases get very little public or national attention, such as the Kelo case received.  With very little public scrutiny, family courts have slowly chipped away at parental rights to the point where these once-sacred rights are now nothing more than a mere government-privilege.  Parents often see their children only as much as a judge will permit and make child-rearing decisions only to the extent a judge allows.
 
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution undoubtedly protect the rights to life, liberty, and property, including parental rights.  While all courts admit the Fourteenth Amendment protects parental rights, they typically follow this admission by dismantling or ignoring this right.  Each parent has equal rights to their child, yet courts routinely reduce one parent to a mere visitor in their child''s life.  Courts are now the largest cause of fatherlessness (and sometimes motherlessness) in America.
 
As it now stands, a parent''s right to his or her children (supposed "fundamental" or natural rights) are subject to the whim of the child''s other parent and the unfettered discretion of a single judge.  If one spouse chooses to exit the marriage, a judge then decides how much time each parent may see the child.  Instead of recognizing the equal rights of each parent, judges generally issue lopsided custody orders which allow the child to see one parent for only 20%-30% of the child''s life.  The typical every other weekend scenario removes the non-custodial parent from their child''s life for nearly 80% of the child''s life--all in the "best interests of the child."
 
Unbeknownst to many, the state has great incentive to separate a parent and child.  Under Title IV(D) of the Social Security Act, the state receives federal money based on the creation of a non-custodial parent and the number of child support dollars that flow through the state''s courts.  The longer the state keeps the child from one parent, the more child support the non-custodial parent must pay and thus the more federal money the state gets.
 
This situation is not only perverse and immoral but also unconstitutional.  Two, fit parents have equal rights to their children.  Most importantly, children have a fundamental right to a meaningful relationship with each parent.  Yet, family courts have converted children into a mere creature of the state which now decides the relationship the child may have with each parent, despite the fact that both parents may be fit and pose no threat of harm to the child. 
 
If you have experienced the horrors of family court, please contact us at general.counsel@uarf.us .  We are compiling data for research purposes and are looking into taking action to stop the family court''s impermissible intrusion into the American family, as well as the family courts'' destruction of the United States Constitution.


Mission Statement

Mission Statement

About The Unalienable Rights Foundation

The Unalienable Rights Foundation focuses on promoting good government practices: designating officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. We will help Americans to shine a light on those who betray the public trust:

If a public official misuses his position to demand campaign contributions, the Foundation will find creative ways to seek civil remedies.
If a witness is threatened or punished because he/she reported official misconduct, the Foundation will fight back on behalf of the witness.
If a government agency withholds information to which the public is entitled, the Foundation will help enforce legal rules regarding disclosure.
If a group libels an honest public servant, the Foundation will help the victim defend his reputation.

The Foundation will seize opportunities like these, bringing high-impact public exposures of evil doers. The majority of our reports and stories will focus on real people and their stories about the lack of government integrity. Not only do these people need and deserve our support, their stories can serve as powerful tools to seize public attention and move public opinion.

The Foundation will work with the press, government investigators, and other public interest groups to make sure that these peoples'' stories are heard. In the process, Foundation will build a non-partisan investigative alliance that transcends specific issues. Our aim is to encourage officials to be open about their values and to act based upon their honest and best assessment of the public interest.

As we do this, over time Foundation will develop a network of public interest groups, sympathetic government investigators and media contacts ... a far-reaching, more mainstream version of the conservative league of individuals that has been so effective. We will work with that network to focus public attention on government integrity and to educate the public about dishonest or disingenuous government officials. If history is any indication, this type of network can have a substantial impact on public opinion.


Atlas

·Teacher attacked by Muslim student after calling al-Qaeda a terrorist group
·Nazi Youth Circa 2010: Muslim Brotherhood Establishes New Youth Organization
·Wafa Sultan (and FDI) on ABC News
·Craven Quisling US Apologizes to Jihadist Gaddafi for His call to Jihad on Switzerland
·NYC: In Defense of Israel
·Slumdog Billionaire
·We've got mail!
·US Muslim Leaders Forbid Muslims in America from Sending Food, Aid to US Troops
·Atlas Book Club
·Seven Muslims Arrested in Ireland over plot to assassinate cartoonist Lars Vilks

read more...

HERITAGE FOUNDATION

·What is Best for Health Care Reform?
·February Employment Report
·What Can Be Done About Iran?
·2009 Index of Dependence on Government
·Is Funding Preschools Necessary?
·Opportunities for Secretary Clinton
·Bypassing Popular Opinion on Health Care
·After the Health Care Summit
·Let's Get Health Care Right

read more...


     T R A N S L A T I O N S
Translations Language
Helpcom Spanish Spanish

Helpcom French

French
 Helpcom German German
Helpcom Italian Italian

     Big Story of Today
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet.

     Old Articles
Thursday, December 10
· Was 1776 a Revolt
Thursday, December 03
· Richmond HOA Violates Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005
Tuesday, November 17
· Become a part of Free Speech on Facebook
· Moslems have somehow sized control of Facebook
Sunday, November 08
· Political Correctness - Today's Sound Bite Tomorrow's Political Suicide
Friday, October 09
· Cindy Kucharski's Letter to Senator Vitter
Thursday, October 08
· Stop obsessing over the color of elected officials' skin
Monday, August 31
· Preservation of Freedom of Speech and Constitutional Rights Request Guide Lines
Thursday, August 20
· Is Obamacare Constitutional? Short Answer: No.
Tuesday, August 11
· Gun Confiscation (The Termite Approach)- Call your Senator T O D A Y !!!
Thursday, August 06
· U. S. Law on Records Maintained on Individuals By U.S. Govt
Monday, July 13
· Please Join Us On Facebook
· Each individual is accountable for his actions.
Sunday, July 12
· Looks like Congress is Looking to Attack the Bill of Rights 10th Admen
Wednesday, July 08
· "the right to be left alone"
Sunday, June 28
· Liberality is not giving much but giving wisely
· Sotomayor, Socialism, Fascist and Empathy For Screw You
Monday, June 22
· Stop Pelosi's Fast Track of Cap and Trade
Sunday, June 14
· Abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of t
Saturday, June 13
· Who Is Not Qualified to be Virginia's Attorney General
Friday, June 12
· The cause of most of your problems is you
Thursday, June 11
· Senate Approves Bill Regulating Tobacco Companies
Thursday, June 04
· SAFETY WARNING FOR USERS OF ON LINE SOCIAL NETWORKS
Monday, May 25
· Memorial Day - A reflection
Saturday, May 23
· Jefferson: Some of His Thoughts
Tuesday, May 12
· Common Sense Gun Law in Utah
· Texas Clamps Down on Eminent Domain
Saturday, May 09
· The Mexican US Border Follow Israel's Lead A Wall
Friday, May 08
· TREATY OBLIGATIONS CONFLICT WITH PRESIDENT'S PLANS
· ACTIONS not within the scope of the powers of the corporation, are void

Older Articles

     THE COURTS
·404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /service/newsfeed.php was not found on this server.

" target="new">404 Not Found


read more...

     US Supreme Court Today
Currently there is a problem with headlines from this site

     CNN
·Jury urges death penalty for former 'Bachelor No. 1'
·U.S.: 'Jihad Jane' backed terrorists
·Ex-doc sentenced for wife's poisoning
·Missing executive's body found in river
·Police: Ohio State shooter killed himself
·Man pleads guilty in N.J. airport scare
·Oscar interrupter: I was wronged
·China may ban eating dogs, cats
·Lawmaker foe of gay rights: I'm gay
·Opinion: Gays have right to privacy, too

read more...




Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MMVIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

Google
WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 1.63 Seconds