A right is something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition or nature.
Left-liberals are constantly seeking to invent new rights. They believe that if they can establish something as a right by repeatedly call it a right in the media, they can legitimately work for the passage of laws which will enshrine that right in law with legal protections and sanctions.
Thus we have had pro-abortion persons arguing that a woman has a right to kill her unborn child.
Everyone has a right to die, meaning that suicide and euthanasia are ok.
Animals have a right to sue their owners.
Two gay people have a right to marry.
A tiny fish has a right to survive and avoid extinction even if farmers are bankrupted for lack of water and people starve. Ditto for spotted owls, wolves, grizzly bears, butterflies, etc.
During the campaign of 2008 Obama was asked if he thought that health care was a right. He answered, “Yes!”
In the United Nations long worked-on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, catch-all document that it is, there is no mention of health care as a right.
So if government creates a right to health care government can take away, control, limit, determine everything about health care.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the "Most Translated Document" in the world. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are respectfully entitled to. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law. In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time."
HERE IS JEFF JACOBY ON HEALTH CARE AS A RIGHT:
DURING SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY'S FUNERAL in Boston's Mission Church last month, his 12-year-old grandson offered an intercessory prayer:
"For what my grandpa called the cause of his life," Max Allen said, "that every American will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege, we pray to the Lord."
Opinions differed on whether a funeral was the right place to importune the Almighty for universal health care. But that He is the source of fundamental rights is in fact a core American belief. The Declaration of Independence pronounces it a self-evident truth that human beings "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" – rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health care isn't on that list. Should it be?
A great deal depends on the answer, for the Declaration's very next sentence affirms that the purpose of government is to "secure" those rights against infringement. If access to health care is deemed a fundamental right, then the government must be obliged to guarantee that access to every citizen. Medical treatment would have to be available on an equal basis to anyone seeking it, regardless of age or physical condition or ability to pay. Washington could no more entrust the provision of health care to private markets than it does freedom of religion: Your religious liberty, after all, is not a commodity you must purchase – it is yours by right, no matter where you live or how much you are worth. Should the same be true of health care?
Ted Kennedy was hardly alone in saying so.
When Barack Obama was asked during one of the 2008 presidential debates whether health care is a right, a privilege, or a responsibility, he answered promptly: "I think it should be a right for every American." The 2008 Democratic National Platform avows in its opening paragraph that "affordable health care is a basic right." When the Harvard Community Health Plan commissioned a survey on the subject some years back, 90 percent of respondents said that everyone had the right to "the best possible health care -- as good as a millionaire."
It is not hard to understand the urgent passion with which so many people approach the issue of health care. And it would take a remarkably cold heart to be indifferent to the desperation of those who need medical help but cannot afford it. But rights do not spring from passion or need. Wanting something does not entitle you to it -- not if someone else must provide or produce that something. The rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are negative rights only -- they protect our autonomy, allowing us to peacefully live life and pursue happiness, neither coercing others nor being coerced by them.
My right to free speech or to own property does not give me a claim on anyone else's time or labor or resources. But if I have a "right" to health care, someone else must be compelled to provide or pay for that care. Compulsion comes in different forms -- higher taxes, lower fees, insurance mandates, health-care rationing, intrusive regulations -- but the bottom line is the same: a universal right to health care would leave society less free.
Not in a free society, it isn't.
It may sound noble to declare that health care is a fundamental human right and not a mere commodity to be left to the vagaries of the market. Of course, the same thing could be said about food or clothing -- also essential to human welfare -- yet not even Ted Kennedy would have suggested that Washington nationalize US food production or overhaul the clothing industry. It is precisely because food and clothing are seen as commodities, because we do leave their availability to the market, that they can be had in such abundance and diversity.
To be sure, some people will always need help. No decent person or society ignores the cries of the sick or hungry or poor. Happily, there is no better system for achieving the widest possible access to health care -- or any other good or service -- than the one that requires the least degree of political interference: the normal interplay of supply, demand, and competition. Health care is too important to be left to the marketplace? No, it is too important not to be.
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Sunday, 13 September 09
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Here is Hadley Arkes on Obamacare:
The Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House was working at the time on the bill on partial-birth abortion, and I had given as a gift to the committee one of my best students from Amherst. He called me one night in disbelief: He had just seen a Democratic senator from California on “Nightline,” and she declared that she could support the bill only if it contained a provision to allow this grisly procedure if it were truly necessary for the “health” of the pregnant woman. “But the bill,” he said, “does contain a ‘health exception.’ How could she look straight into the camera and say such a thing?” The simplest explanation was she thought she could get away with it:
Most people out there in the public would not know she was speaking falsely, and even if she were corrected, the correction wouldn’t reach most members of the audience who might have been lulled by her comments.
I am not exactly starry-eyed about politicians, but I shared some of the shock of my student over the audacity of the lie. That performance was just a mild rehearsal however, for a form of political theater that would reach its fullest cultivation as an art with Barack Obama.
And instead of being something striking in its rareness, it would become woven into daily practice, as much a part of routine with this new president as breakfast and lunch. How else to account for the ability of Mr. Obama to stand before the Congress last week, and a nation-wide audience, and say, “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."
It was a manifest lie. But journalists would become so entangled in trying to read the minutiae in the bill that they would miss what was indeed so plain or manifest in the untruth before their eyes. And so writers trying to sort through the strands would point out that abortion would be covered, in one version, only in plans in which people opt for abortion and pay a premium.
The Democrats contended that these were then merely “private” dollars, put up by the participants themselves.
But of course it was the thinnest fiction to say that these were “private dollars.” As one commentator suggested, imagine that the government allowed people to contribute voluntarily to the support of mercenaries in Iraq. Would anyone seriously believe that the federal government, collecting and disbursing, these funds would not be funding the mercenaries?
Besides, as Richard Doerflinger of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out, anyone subscribing to insurance supported by the government would have to pay the premium that supports all other abortions. At every turn, this belies the claim of “no federal support or subsidy for abortion” if one merely looked more closely. Or: if one read any of these provisions when set in the larger bill of which they were merely parts.
And if we stood back to take in the view of the whole, what would we see? In the first place, we see the bill brought forth under the most radical pro-abortion president the country has ever seen: a man who opposed the move even to protect a child who survived an abortion; who promised his supporters than any program of medical care would cover “reproductive” rights; and whose administration pushes that notion of “reproductive rights” at every conference under the United Nations, and in every place where there is discretion under our laws. This president has declared his intention to remove the protections of “conscience” put in place for doctors and nurses in dealing with abortion, and to repeal the Hyde Amendment that barred the use of federal funds to support most abortions.
Every level of the administration is filled with people who regard abortion as a medical procedure legitimate, desirable, urgently necessary. And so when the bill mandates “professional services of physicians and other health professionals”; when it seeks a new Health Advisory Panel to recommend other medical procedures to be covered; and when the recommendations are made to a Secretary of Health and Human Services who is famously pro-abortion – with all of these ingredients in place, what is one reasonably to expect? The presumption must be that abortion would be amply covered at many points unless there is an explicit move to forbid the coverage of abortion in the bill. And yet, when amendments of that kind were offered, they were routinely voted down in committee along party lines by the Democrats.
What is unique about Barack Obama was revealed during the controversy over his opposition, in Illinois, to protecting the children who survived abortions. When this news broke out in the presidential campaign, his response, audacious and clever, was to accuse his critics of lying for bringing the news. They would be tarred as liars for telling, about him, such a monstrous truth. And what worked in the campaign is now taken up as his standard operating procedure. What hasn’t been fully grasped about Obama is that he lies even when there is no need to lie; he lies in the way that concert pianists need to practice every day. For apart from the utility of it, he needs to practice, as any true artist needs to practice, for the sake of cultivating his art at its highest level.
THE ART OF OBAMA
by Hadley Arkes
Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College
Tuesday, 15 September 09
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens