Could it possibly be that those behind the current individuals in power are operating under “a doctrine of post-sovereign globalism in which America is seen as owing its principal allegiance to the international legal order rather than to our own Constitution and national interests”? According to the National Review Online that is exactly what is going on here.

Recall that the president chose to install former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh as his State Department’s legal adviser. Koh is the country’s leading proponent of transnationalism. He is now a major player in the administration’s deliberations over international law and cooperation. Naturally, membership in the International Criminal Court, which the United States has resisted joining, is high on Koh’s agenda. The ICC claims worldwide jurisdiction, even over nations that do not ratify its enabling treaty, notwithstanding that sovereign consent to jurisdiction is a bedrock principle of international law.

As the Republic draws to an end over the coming decades so does the sovereignty of our nation as the progressives push our Constitution aside for more international concerns.   The moral relativism of today slowly eats away at the freedom and justice of tomorrow in barely perceptable ways.   Tomorrow perhaps Rumsfeld and Bush can’t travel outside the country for fear of arrest.  The next day our soldiers returning from the battlefield are arrested by the a U.N. police force stationed in America.   Will it take 100 years, 50, or 20? Only time will tell.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

via The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today we know by basic common sense that non of these things are rights.  The concept that everybody should be given as a right a standard of living is of course completely illogical.  And that this standard of living should provide us with health and well-being is purely an excercise in make-believe.   Human beings recognize that they are responsible for their own health and well-being.  One would not try to argue from an intellectual standpoint that entertainment which can help one unwind and have a sense of fun and well-being is right and therefore, they have a right to cable TV, the latest video game, or a movie ticket.  Or that they enjoy a sip alcohol after a hard days work because it helps their well-being (Ben Franklin said that alcohol was proof God wanted us to be happy); therefore, all working American’s should be given a government stipend for alcohol purchases.  It is understood that our self-esteem/well-being and health are dictated by the choices that one makes in life. 

Furthermore, those situations addressed by the UN are not beyond our control they are ALL under are control because we can plan for every single one of them.  We ALL know we will one day get sick, be unemployed, disabled, widowed, and grow old.  We control how these things happen to us and what happens when they happen.  They are predicatable and therefore controlable.  They are not avoidable of course but control and inevitability are of course two different things.  In fact the very nature of something being inevitable increases it’s controlability to our lives.  For example, if you know that today you will die your day would suddenly become VERY controlled.  You’d treat your love ones differently, you probably wouldn’t go to work, you may even do a few extra deeds, and probably visit your church. 

So, where does the right for health care come from?  It comes from those that are followers repeating their leaders words. Those that lead today seek power and fame or the in the corporations greed.   It comes out of the corruption of what a right is - human, civic, or natural.  Read carefully TheRighttoHealthCare.org and how they define a right.  Notice they do not define a right instead saying that a right is undefined.  Read through the whole site and notice there is no philosophical, intellectual, or logical reason for health care as a right.  So, how then do they make the leap?  By saying that a right is ever changing and growing.  In other word there is no standard definition of a right. 

This is the root of the problem with the health care debate (and many other “debates”).

It seems that because somebody says, “Health care is a right” it becomes a right.  Just because I say, “The moon is made of cheese” does not make the moon actually made of cheese.  The only way way to make this “health care is a right” logical is to make a right anything and everything.  In other words if cheese could also mean dust and dirt and rock then I am right the moon is made of cheese.  This is what is being done. 

What does this mean to us as citizens and individuals?  What is something that is undefined? Something that is undefined has no meaning or value.  For example, 20 divided by zero is undefined it has no meaning and no value.  If we try to add something divided by zero to something it is meaningless.  This is of course mathmatical so let me simplify.  How much would you pay me (value) for something that I’m not going to tell you what it is (undefined)? If you’re smart it better not be much.

Those that are trying to make health care a right do not (cannot) understand the consquences of their actions and what is more they are devaluing the actual meaningful value of a right by not defininging it.

Both liberals and conservatives should take serious issue with our current politicians that are debating health care and treating it as a right. 

Liberal’s and liberalism’s defined core philosophies are supposed to center around human rights and individual freedom by definition.  The undefining of a right as evidenced in the health care debate makes by it’s nature human rights something of no value.

Conservatives by definition hold on to what is traditional and try to maintain old values.  The debate around health care is redefining rights and doing away with the traditional and old values to replace them with something undefined and of no value.

Both ideologies should be attacking this “health care” plan.  Instead the liberals are debating about the form it should be in and the conservatives are proposing alternatives.

From the GlobeandMail.com

The UN resolution has no legal force, but its symbolism is disturbing. Any Islamic government that legislates against an “insult to Islam,” which can cover nearly anything, has just been given a pat on the back. Anyone anywhere who finds something objectionable – a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in an editorial cartoon in Denmark, or a novel set in India, or a mention of the Prophet Mohammed in connection with a beauty pageant in Nigeria – has been handed a moral justification for protest. This, in a world in which such protests have often taken deadly forms.

It’s interesting to learn how anti-democratic the U.N. is by passing such a law against free speech. It’s also interesting to see how blatently hypocritical many of the Muslim countries are that passed this legislation. After it’s illegal to be a Jew in some Muslim countries that voted for this legislation, it’s illegal for a non-Muslim to be in Mecca, a person can be killed for converting from Islam in some countries, and many Muslim countries treat women as less valuable then then men.

Of course no self respecting free society will pay any attention to this law. However, it eye opening to see how cold and hypocritical the Muslim world can be.