Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Human rights are granted by God

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, December 5, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:48 am, Mon Dec 5, 2011.

I am commenting on "Politicians trying to remove Second Amendment rights" (Nov. 16). Without any criticism for the writer, I am mostly interested in the title, which purports that the constitution grants a right. Also, the writer criticizes that politicians seek to take guns away from law-abiding "citizens." (What is a "citizen"?)

Human rights are granted by God, not by the constitution — and not by government. I claim God-given human rights, and I have no interest in government-given civil rights or constitutional rights. Wherever people consent as being a U.S. citizen to enjoy civil or constitutional rights, one day, these alleged rights can suddenly vanish as if they had never existed.

I remind people that the Constitution limits the powers of government, and wherever a human right is mentioned, such as the writ of habeas corpus, the language states that the government shall not take that right away. Nowhere does the Constitution claim to give a right.

My second comment pertains to the common mistake of believing that rights are given to U.S. citizens. The preamble states that We the People created the Constitution. It doesn't state "We the Citizens." A considerable amount of corruption developed and the federal government was victorious in the Civil War by the time the 14th Amendment defined "citizen." A claim of being a 14th Amendment creation in legal fiction is not a claim of being a child of God.

Daniel Hutchins

Acampo

Reference Links

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

34 comments:

  • Kim Lee posted at 1:25 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I have no respect for anything you have to say, I would consider it a waste of time to check with you about anything."

    And the list continues to grow with all the people that Darrell does not respect and thinks are a waste of time (yet he still tries to engage in discussion/debate). It looks like I am in great company!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:48 am on Thu, Dec 8, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel stated...Jeff: Very entertaining. Thank you. Darrell: That's very interesting. You thought we were talking about redemption. No, we were talking about redemption.

    Nice to know you are so easily entertained... Ill remember that for future posts.

    In addition, obviously redemption was "not" in your head... redemption was...asking if Jeff wanted to apologize was in mine... sorry if a little play on words was confusing for the two of you... Ill try to simplify next time.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:41 pm on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff stated...You might want to check that the parties you are addressing understand that you changed the subject before you criticize them for not following you.

    Jeff... Since I was directing my comment to you and no one else, there is only one party...not parties... and since I have no respect for anything you have to say, I would consider it a waste of time to check with you about anything. If you cannot understand the obvious, that is your problem... not mine.
    As far as your comment that Daniel thought I was confused... that was predictable to me.. I would have been surprised if he understood what I intended directly for you.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 6:48 pm on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Jeff: Very entertaining. Thank you.

    Darrell: That's very interesting. You thought we were talking about redemption. No, we were talking about redemption.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 1:44 pm on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    wow, that's what that was... a transition? kind of a clunky way to go about it; even Daniel called you out for being confused. You might want to check that the parties you are addressing understand that you changed the subject before you criticize them for not following you.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:54 am on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Of course Jeff... I decided to talk about redemption from a god basis... You would think a teacher would be clever enough to know that an unrelated topic and point can be generated ... or is that again an educational rule you live by?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:46 am on Wed, Dec 7, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    Wow, Darrell, you actually have no clue what Daniel and I are talking about. We are not talking about Redemption in any biblical or godly sense. This is not about Daniel or myself asking a god for redemption, so there is no deed to for which to apologize for. This is about the Redemption Movement. A theory that Daniel at least partially subscribes to, and that you lambasted me for ascribing his contentions to. So, again, go back to your hole.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:45 pm on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Daniel...Jeff asked you “ how close are you to completing your Redemption?” I took that as a question that reaches far outside this thread. Since it is Jeff that brought up the subject of redemption, I thought he would want to apologize for current and previous posts he has contributed over time to earn his own redemption.

    Of course I knew the answer before I asked the question. Jeff thinks very highly of his intellect and would not consider anything he has said as needing an apology. It is not a surprise that he admitted that he was not interested in redemption.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:14 pm on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338


    Darrell: The dialog below looks like you are asking for an apology from Jeff because he responded to me. Apparently you've got something going from before which is not related to this column in which you are responding.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:43 pm on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff Tillett stated...Go back to your hole, Darrell

    then ... Daniel stated......Darrell: Not only do you not have an opinion, but your words carry no meaning whatsoever

    Daniel...I'm glad you understand my words had no meaning for you... it was a comment that only applied to Jeff... he understands but is pretending he does not... I would be concerned for you Daniel if it had meant something to you...

    Jeff... you sound so irritated and peeved... relax... there is no reason for you to be so hostile when all I asked if you were ready to apologize. Evidently, you are not... no problem, it is what I expected... I forgive you anyway.(its Christmas season after all)

    As far as redemption... based on your previous posts, no one could possible think you were interested in redemption...obviously.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:20 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    I am not interested in Redemption, although I am fascinated by the theory.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:13 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Jeff: The reason I am defensive about redemption is that some aspects of what some people might refer to as "redemption" is not to be discussed in a public forum because it is very sensitive. Perhaps when I first discovered it, I was fascinated and thought my fellow US Citizens might want to know, but that has changed. If you are curious about this information, I can only direct you, if you are interested.

    Was that you that expressed an interest about a month ago?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:19 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Darrell: Not only do you not have an opinion, but your words carry no meaning whatsoever. You would have a better reputation if you just typed random keys on your key pad, like this: "a;kdja;lskdjfa;lkdj as;ldkfjas;ldkfjasld;kj a;sldkfjas;ldkfj"

    Moreover, you sure did type a lot of nothing for somebody who has no opinion.

    If you keep it up, K Lee is going to have some more joke material.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 5:47 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    For what? Daniel's Redemption has nothing to do with God and everything to do with being a Citizen. Go back to your hole, Darrell.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:32 am on Tue, Dec 6, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff Tillett posted at 12:38 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011...Daniel, how close are you to completing your Redemption?

    Jeff... how close are you to offering an apology? You too may experience redemption if you do the right thing.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:20 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Andrew: That website discusses "Sovereign Citizens," which is an oxymoron, at the same time that it defines 14th amendment "Citizen."

    There's something fundamentally wrong with this website.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:19 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick,

    What do you do for a living? Are you in a profession which benefits from deprivation of peoples' rights?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:02 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick,

    You seem offended that I am telling people that they have fundamental human rights and that they only need to claim them.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:50 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Andrew: Of course you realize that you quoted a US Supreme Ct. citation, right?

    frankly, I'm impressed that you found that.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:49 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Andrew: You got an excellent citation there.


    It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the privileges it creates. By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a person's relationship with the government. In the legal sense, everything else is built upon it. Therefore, since fourteenth amendment citizenship is a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's life could potentially be regulated. Worst of all, this new class of citizen does not have the right to invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, as explained in the following supreme court case:

    We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment...

    Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:01 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Daniel, the sheeple are asleeple...

    http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/art2.html

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:48 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick: Thank you for talking about me at the dinner table.

    Jeff Tillett: I don't recall using the word "redemption."

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 6:31 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    So anyway, speaking over the din of Mr. Hutchins' crazy talk...
    His claimed gift of special status granted by his version of a nebulous "God" opens the door for every other loon who wishes to claim their "God" assured them it is fine to perform honor killings (Sharia law), or another "God" has granted someone the right to commit some other atrocity in his name.

    If Mr. Hutchins is so confident that his rights have been provided specially for him, let him go abroad and assert his American God-given rights under the auspices of another government and see if his "God" will rush to his rescue or, as is more likely the case, Mr. Hutchins would be reduced to calling on the U.S. government to bail his sorry corpus out.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 12:38 pm on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    Daniel, how close are you to completing your Redemption?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:20 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    14th amendment defines "Citizen" as a capitalized title.

    Original constitution mentions citizens as common nouns.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    The LNS editors don't understand the nature of the 14th amendment title definitions either.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:47 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    NOTICE OF ERROR TO LODI NEWS SENTINEL EDITING: The Lodi News Sentinel has changed the proper noun title "Citizen" to a common noun "citizen" as a thing. Wherever "US" appears and the 14th amendment defines the title, it is a proper noun and should not have been edited.

    Notice that the word "News" appears in the name of the newspaper. Just because the term "news" has a common noun usage does not mean that the word cannot be used in the name of the newspaper and then capitalized wherever it is used in the name.

    Ditto for the title "U.S. Citizen."

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:38 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick: "secular laws" ?

    "law" ? Are you referring to contractual codes and statutes, which people believe are laws?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:28 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick: "religious authority?"

    re - ligion

    Re: To do again
    Legion: Military troops.

    Nope. I am not religious. I am speaking of God.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:26 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick Houdack: "the consequences of reducing the United States from a nation of secular laws to a melee of shouted assertions of religious authority?"

    No. Because this statement is irrelevant.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:25 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick Houdack: I remind you that the purpose of bearing arms is not always to go hunting, and the 2nd amendment specifically mentions that the right to bear arms might be essential for the maintenance of a militia.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:22 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick Houdack: I remind you that the Roman empire invented the concept of civil rights, and as we both remember in history, Rome treated its people with the utmost respect, and all of the people were prosperous and enjoyed their lives to the fullest of their potential without governmental intervention, under their governmental-granted civil rights.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:20 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Rick Houdack: I am not responsible for how you feel about God, how you refer to God with quotations around it, and how you refer to God as someone else's God, not yours.

    Whatever right it is that you believe is given by your "government," can also be taken away by your "government."

    Yes, I put quotations around your higher power.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 5:26 am on Mon, Dec 5, 2011.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 173

    Adamant as he is that his rights are somehow a magical endowment by his invisible friend, it would be better if Mr. Hutchins admitted that his rights are in reality granted by society and the government after all.

    Mr. Hutchins, in retrospect, your "God" has not really guaranteed you the "right" to possess an arsenal of firearms, has he? How exactly would that conversation even get get started? Are there any other special powers you believe he has granted you? Beyond the topic of weaponry, do you feel other people also have the "right" to claim their "God" has given them "rights" and against such claims the government should be rendered powerless?

    Have you considered the consequences of reducing the United States from a nation of secular laws to a melee of shouted assertions of religious authority?

     

Recent Comments

Posted 14 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

As I thought Brian has nothing but words. Hit and run. Typical conservative of the fox sort who are presented with words all day with out s…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Hmmm.... noticed a typo. The second to last sentence of my post from 7:33 pm on Sun, Oct 19, 2014 should read "This year Dr Powell…

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Holly Stuetze.

article: Daryl Talken, Jennifer Wise vie for emp…

Thanks Ann. That was negative. Not sure about the title stuff but I worked with her at Lincoln Tech when we opened that school and she cert…

More...

Posted 16 hours ago by Angie McDaniel.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Jimmy P. said, "I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 20…

More...

Posted 18 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Feisty Tony Amador taking on moderate J…

Wow. Thanks for sharing your story, Mr. Ojeda, and I am truly sorry for what you have gone through. As such a vocal advocate for veteran…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists