Posted on 08/26/2010 8:28:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States for the first time joined the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. The U.S. has long steered clear of this council, reluctant to participate in a "human rights" body that despots like Syria and Libya routinely chair.
But Obama brought the U.S. under the council's jurisdiction, and this week his administration submitted for the first time a review of the human rights situation in the U.S. to the council. Many have criticized it for sounding too apologetic about Americans' human rights record.
It is a very revealing document, though, especially on the core question: What counts as a basic human right?
To the American ear, long-schooled to recognize rights as individual freedoms guaranteed by government, not goodies subsidized by taxpayers, the oddest note is the long paean to Obamacare in the middle of this official report on alleged human rights:
"On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The Act makes great strides toward the goal that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. ... The law will also help our nation reduce disparities and discrimination in access to care that have contributed to poor health. For example, African Americans are 29 percent more likely to die from heart disease than non-Hispanic whites. Asian American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men. ... The Act will reduce disparities like these through access to preventive services; investment in chronic disease control and prevention; enhanced data collection."
Does the president really believe that Obamacare is a basic human right? If a new Congress retools this deeply unpopular bill, does he suggest to the council we are now violating international human rights standards?
To be fair, the State Department account of Obamacare as a "human rights" advance is perfectly consistent with the way the U.N. Human Rights Council thinks about human rights. On Feb. 12 of this year, for example, a special reporter to the Human Rights Council issued her own report on how the U.S. can better meet alleged international human rights standards in housing. (See the full report here:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/107/39/PDF/G1010739.pdf
The report recommends, well, more democratic socialism, less Republican free-market values.
More scarce taxpayer money for subsidized housing? That's a human rights given. But the list of remedies grows longer. The report laments that "housing discrimination by income" is permitted in most places in America; it urges Congress to force private landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers, and also urges Congress to give Section 8 tenants and city governments a right of first refusal in the sale of rental properties occupied by subsidized tenants. (This of course would also mean subsidized tenants and governments would acquire a quasi-ownership right over virtually all private rental property, potentially tying up owners of rental properties for years in expensive litigation if they wish to sell.)
The report also suggested that Congress forbid the use of criminal records or drug tests to screen tenants for subsidized housing. Government should also "expand the definition of homelessness" to include people living with their family when times are hard. And she even urges our government to recognize the right of vagrants to camp out in public parks and streets, whenever "shelter is not available." San Francisco values anyone? The proposal by U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to establish a special federal right to "adequate housing" for children is warmly applauded -- only the report also urges expanding the definition of "child" up to age 25, since many young adults are still youths, "psychosocially" speaking.
Some or all of these proposals may be debatable as matters of public policy. But the point is that the busybodies at the U.N. Human Rights Council would like to transform public policy debates into human rights imperatives, subject to the scrutiny of international organizations like themselves. The report's final, most urgent recommendation is that the U.S. sign onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is a brief for a socialized democratic form of government over the American Founders' vision of freedom.
Government does not guarantee rights. Rights to life and liberty come from God. Government only protect those rights.
The difference is extremely important.
Yes,I need Obamacare to fight bedbugs,whooping cough,dengue
fever!
More proof (if you actually needed it) that the State Department has been, and continues to be, filled with Marxists.
You beat me to it. It’s sad that even conservatives who know what their rights are often forget where they come from.
Since the courts have at least twice ruled that no one has a legal right to Social Security (i.e., Congress can—and almost certainly will—change eligibility rules or benefits whenever it wants, including deciding not to pay any benefits whatsoever), then it’s a large stretch to view Obamacare as conferring any sort of “right” to health care—especially since it leaves 23 million uninsured. Is our failure to cover them denying them some sort of right?
Progressives may not view it this way, but from the standpoint of the law, that’s how the program would be viewed (assuming Obamacare can even survive efforts to kill it on constitutional grounds, through repeal or substantial modification).
The difference is extremely important.
Glad I read the comments first, because I started formulating the exact post above as soon as I read that sentence.
They are jamming as many communist funding mechanisms as they can in to the budget before the next two years of continuing resolutions. They know they will lose the House. They know there will be de-funding attempts. They know the Republicans rather than shut down the government will pass continuing resolutions.
With the UN hovering as a sort of alter ego.
The title to the thread actually asks whether the sick has an enforceable right to the fruit of my labor. Of course it doesn't and I believe there is ample authority for such view in scripture and the Constitution.
Do you know how any of the court cases are progressing?
Naturalist affirm the existence of natural justice, of natural and unalienable rights, of the natural moral law, and of valid prescriptive oughts that elicit our assent, both independently of and prior to the existence of positive law.
The positivists deny all this and affirm the opposite. For them, the positive laws-the man-made law of the state-provides the only prescriptive oughts that human beings are compelled to obey. According to them, nothing is just or unjust until it has been declared so by a command or prohibition of positive law.Libtards use the positivist mentality are to declare anything a right if it "feels good" to them.
If someone else has to pay to provide it to you, it's not a "right" in any way, shape or form. True rights do not have to be "given" to us by others; they only must be respected by others.
It doesn't cost anyone else a dime for me to exercise my rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. But if healthcare, a house, food, a job, a cellphone and a suitable domestic pet are my "right" to have -- the rest of youse guys must pony up to pay to fulfil my "rights."
NOT.
Summary: first clue it's not a right: it costs someone else money to provide it to you.
It is theft if taken involunarily. This is why I would eliminate all government programs. Including Social Security and Medicare and make them voluntary. They are bankrupted anyway.
The Virginia case got a preliminary ruling by the judge that is bad news for Obamacare. This case won’t be heard until October 18, so it’s not clear whether a ruling would be issued before the election. http://jhpplnewsandnotes.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/liberty-wins-first-skirmish-in-the-obamacare-legal-battle-ilya-shapiro-cato-liberty/
Many have criticized it for sounding too apologetic about Americans' human rights record.
THAT'S IT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
What in Hell's Bells is this lunatic President doing in the first place, submitting his and our country to the authority and "review" for approval of the U.N., on any grounds, for any reason, under any circumstances whatsoever?
And what is the plan here, Mr. President, when the U.N. comes back with one of its predictably ludicrous, anti-American screeds -- are you going to fire up TOTUS and spend three hours lecturing us, and particularly, say, the State of Arizona, on how we are the scourge of the earth and how embarrassed you are to have to "lead" a country so reviled by the intellectually and morally superior Beings at the UNITED NATIONS?
And, oh, by the way, Mr. President, when you do bring us that lecture, be sure to have your new BMF, Presidente Calderone, by your side. You know, just to remind us of how other countries such as Mexico get the human rights thing so much righter than we Americans do.
No, Ms. Gallagher, that is NOT the point. Attempts to turn public policy debates into human rights imperatives is nothing new whatsoever for the busybodies at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The point of this pathetic and telling episode is that the United States of America now has a president who is so unaware of our cultural values and our core character as a nation that he himself "would like to transform public policy debates into human rights imperatives, subject to the scrutiny of international organizations like [the U.N.]."
Ms. Gallagher, and all Americans, this is much, much worse, and dangerous, than U.N. busybodiness as usual.
This story has been reported since Aug 23 (as far as I can find) in Washington Post. Both the Townhall & Post stories leave out some interesting details found on AIP (America’s Independent Party) website. Major detail is that our country will be subjected to humiliating hearing by the UN on Nov 5. Instructive to see variations in the story.
AIP News (Amer Ind Party) via Free Republic
The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.
In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:
The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.
Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16411&posts=1&start=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303880.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_un_rights_1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2576982/posts
Thanks, DrC. I knew about the Virginia case and hope and pray that a ruling does happen before the election. I thought we’d be hearing more about the cases that are being filed by some states, collectively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.