The topic came up again last night on Hannity. Hannity had a very interesting Great American Panel last night. Bob Beckel, Redstate’s own Erick Erickson, and singer/Playboy model Aubrey O’Day were the guests. After discussing a program that U.S. tax dollars are funding in Africa that provides sex education to 5-year olds, the talked turned to health care. O’Day maintained that health care is a right, even calling it a “basic civil right”. She also declared that people have a civil right to affordable housing, food, and medication (which I think included contraception). It’s not the first time liberals have made that claim. Obama said health care is a right, too. The Nation makes the same argument.

Let me repeat. Health care is not a right. Maybe it will help to look at the definition of a civl right:

Webster’s says: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

Got that? Rights are the product of personal liberty. They are not guarantees of a lifestyle. Rights derive from natural rights, which are universal in nature. Universal means they’re not limited by time, place, or culture. Slavery provides a compelling example of the meaning of universal rights. Even though American culture and custom accepted the idea of enslaving certain people, blacks had the right to be free, just as all people everywhere have that right.

Now, let’s apply that standard to health care. Does everyone have a right to an MRI? Clearly, the Greeks did not have that right. In a state of nature, nobody had that right. People have a right to pursue healthiness. But not a right to the services of a doctor. If health care is a right, then doctors are breaking your rights any time they don’t provide service to someone who needs it.

Let’s look at the “right to affordable housing”. Does everyone have a right to a house? Many cultures don’t use permanent housing, and in fact housing would destroy their culture. Further, the very term “affordable housing” is a misnomer. If it’s affordable, then you can purchase it. We should use the term “welfare housing” because it more accurately describes the service of government giving people property.

Any time property is redistributed, someone’s rights are being violated. The Revolutionary War was fought over the right to own property, and the Constitution liimited the ability of government to seize private property. On a fundamental level, any time the government gives property to an individual for private use, another citizen’s rights are being violated. Here’s why. If you take a dollar from me and give it to my neighbor, you prevent me from spending it on myself. You have deprived me of the ability to use property that I created by my own labors. Further, the idea that people have rights to a certain set of goods ignores reality. There are often fewer goods than there are people. How can everyone have a right to something, if there is a limited supply of that thing? This is the difference between the right to bear arms and the right to a Government-supplied Colt .45.

Conservatives lose the argument whenever they concede the point about the right to health care. Health care is no more a right than Xboxes are right, or Corvettes are a right, or microwaves People have the right to amass their OWN property, and use it as they see fit. But people have no right to have property GIVEN to them by the government.

Michael Steele needs to learn this lesson. He’s currently calling for a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights.” Seniors have no right to health care, any more than anyone else does. It’s easy to see why there is confusion, as seniors have paid into government programs for decades. But welfare programs are not savings accounts, and seniors don’t check the balance before they spend money from Medicare

The speeches were remarkable in that, despite the polar opposites that they appear, both administrations have similar plans. And that is the basis for some national unity down the road. Further, both parties seem to be growing tired of Obama’s tendency to say one thing and do another. In many cases, Obama speaks as a moderate and acts as a liberal. But here, Obama is trying to maintain his liberal cred while also keeping the country safe. But in actual fact, Obama sees the problem the same way that Bush saw it. Both want to release as many detainees as possible, but are having problems finding takers. Both are trying some of the detainees in US courts. Both think military tribunals should be used to handle more difficult cases. And both agree that some of these terrorists are too dangerous to release, and should be held indefinitely.

Supporting this point, the New York Times reported that Obama is still reserving the right to “preventive detention”, holding terrorists (why are some people calling them inmates?) indefinitely. He’s also reserved the right to use enhanced interrogation techniques, while still attacking Bush for using them. Obama’s also on record saying he’ll use rendition if necessary.

Right now, the left is increasingly angry and frustrated that Obama is continuing the Bush policies.  The President is trying to mask his betrayal of the far left by attacking Bush, and saying he’s only doing what he has to do in order to deal with this mess. But the left is so far unappeased. They’ve been condition to hate all of Bush’s policies. How can they now support them, just because Obama is the one giving the orders? This is the opportunity.

For years, the liberals have been blinded by anger. But as they struggle to deal with Obama’s use of Bush’s tactics, the anger will be harder to maintain. How can they hate Bush but love Obama for the same thing? Obama’s persuasive arguments in favor of detaining the worst of the worst will force liberals to reexamine their position.  As the anger gives way to reason, many liberals will deny reason. But others will realize that their anger was misplaced. Some will turn away from their party in disgust, and join the GOP, others will help moderate the voices on the left, and seek to find real solutions to our problems.

As liberals struggle to reconcile their anger with Obama’s positions, conservatives should be supportive. Don’t gloat over the fact that we were right. Help liberals learn more about why we believe what we believe. Help them learn more about conservatism, and dispel the stereotypes propogated by the media.

I suppose it’s nice when Soros and Tom Brokow can work together on something. NBC and Soros so seldom see eye to eye on anything. Turns out Brokow is on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, which has given ACORN over $820,000. Geoffry Immelt, CEO of GE, and Jeff Zucker, president of NBC, are also on the board.

So, a foundation that’s ostensible goal is to help the poor, but which really funnels money to Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, got $50 million from George Soros. No surprise, really. But it bugs me that they do it in the name of Robin Hood. Robin Hood did not primarily rob from the rich and give to the poor. (Which, by the way, is a hilarious position for Soros and most of these board members to endorse). Robin Hood supported the good King Richard; his real foe was corruption, especially corruption in government. Robin Hood fought to stop government from taking property. He lived as an Outlaw in the King’s forest, and killed the King’s deer.  Are Soros and the GE folks really using this foundation to support honest and limited government?

Another example of Obama strongarming his opponents. So much for state’s rights. Oh, and just to complete the trifecta, the wage cuts that Obama wants restored are to workers in the healthcare union.

 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-health-cuts8-2009may08,0,4592200.story

 Quote:

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

Meanwhile, CA already can’t pay its bills, and believes it will be out of money by July. They’re planning on emptying the prisons because they can’t afford to house inmates.

The California model of government was and is unsustainable. The Federal government is adopting more and more components of that model. What happens in California, and Obama’s response to it, is a precursor to what will happen to our economy as a whole. 

It’s not even clear if a state CAN go bankrupt. But you can be sure they won’t be able to meet all of their obligations. CA already has a hard time borrowing money, and that will get worse as the US Treasury starts to run into problems borrowing. California employees are already taking furloughs.  How long before they simply stop getting paid? Except for the union workers of course, they MUST be paid, even if they’re not working at all.

There are two ways to move government in a different direction. Change the mind of incumbents, or replace them. We should advance on both fronts.

The Tea Parties themselves should help.  But we need to come to some sort of minimal agreement on what we want out of our representatives. And we need to e-mail them, write them, call them, and fax them so they know that our positions are not taken lightly.  State and national politicians must clearly understand that change will happen, whether or not they’re still in office to see it.

Secondly, we must promote, and where necessary BE, small-government candidates. The GOP in particular has shown that it’s willing to patronize conservatives, and then continue to grow government and take our money and give it to their rich friends. We must turn out for small-government candidates in the primaries, regardless of the party they choose. And we must also let the GOP know that we’re not giving them money to support the Arlen Specters of the world. When you get that request for money, send back a note that says “not until you promise to spend it ONLY for small-government candidates”.

Lastly, and this is the toughest, saddest part, we have to vote for small government candidates, even if that means running a 3rd candidate for some offices. Today’s politicians respond to money and power. We may not have enough money to pay them to do the right thing.  But if we turn away from corrupt, power hungry politicians, they’ll be sent home. Better for GOP incumbents to lose than to re-elect them with the same results. The sooner we clean house, the sooner we can get started fixing the problem.

“Roy? Roy! I know you’re busy watching film on the Spartans, but the President would like to talk to you.”

“Hello, Mr. President. It’s an honor to speak with you. How are things in Turkey?”

“heheh. You prefer kobe steak. Yes sir, that’s a good one. I’m sorry to be short, Mr. President, but it’s a busy day for me. Did you call to wish the Tarheels good luck?”

“No sir, I don’t know what Coach K was thinking either. Yes sir, I know Reggie Love played for him, and is now on your staff. As I was saying, sir, I need to do a walkthrough with my team.”

“Yes sir, the economy is bad. Worse before it gets better, yes sir. Worse in Michigan? I wouldn’t know, sir, I’ve been busy the past couple months. Yes sir, I’ll take your word for it.”

“Detroit has been a fine host city, sir. Yes sir, I know Michigan State and Detroit are both in Michigan. I imagine there WILL be a lot of Michigan State fans there, sir. Yes, I imagine they would be very happy if the Spartans won, sir. Say, are you calling to tell me that you’re picking them? That’s ok, sir, your vote is yours, cast it as you wish.”

“You want us to WHAT? No sir, I’ve never done that before. No sir, it is NOT done all the time! HOW COULD YOU ASK THAT? Yes sir, I know I’ve won a championship before. YES SIR, I know UNC has won a lot of championships. NOT FAIR?!?! TOO MANY TITLES?!?! MR. PRESIDENT, UNC IS NOT GREEDY! Mr. President, this program has worked damn hard for every title! I will NOT…”

“…I’m sorry sir. Yes sir, I know you’re my President. Who did I vote for? That’s a private matter, sir. Yes sir, I know that it would take Michigan’s mind off of the economy. Yes sir, I know it would be good for Detroit. Sir, have you talked to Coach Izzo about this? I don’t think he would approve. No sir, I don’t think he would like to win, this way. Yes sir, I know we beat them already this year. THEIR TURN? No sir, I don’t see it that way. Yes sir, I know Coach Izzo’s team works hard, too. Yes sir, I know it would be a good thing for them. What about my state, sir? North Carolina voted for you too, sir. Yes sir, I know it was close. Yes sir, I’m aware that you have a lot of supporters in Michigan. Yes sir, I know we have some big banking in North Carolina. Blame it on them, sir? I don’t see how I could do that, Mr. President. Sir, what would I tell Tyler and Danny? They’re seniors. Yes sir, I know they’ll both do fine in the NBA. Spread the wealth, sir? No sir, I don’t really believe in that, sir.”

“I’m.. I’m sorry, Mr. President, I can’t give you an answer right now. What’s that, sir? No, I’m fine. You’ll send me HOW MUCH? No sir, if I do this, you won’t need to send me any money. I’ll call you back in an hour with the answer. Ummmm, it was an honor speaking to you.”

“Do I know a where to contact a bookmaker? No, Mr. President. Yes, I know we’re spending a lot these days. Yes sir, two birds with one stone, sir. Umm, enjoy the rest of your trip, Mr. President.”

This ruling was an expected result of earlier decisions granting rights to GITMO prisoners. The question is, where does it stop? We’re quickly reaching the point where the easiest way for a foreign national to earn the protection of US rights is to blow something up or point a weapon at a US soldier.

There are already plans to release GITMO detainees into the safe environs of Northern Va. Now, if you’re a typical hispanic illegal immigrant, don’t you wish you’d killed some people? I mean, the Muslim fanatics are expected to get PAID. So, not only could you have moved to America, but you’d receive a salary from them. If only you’d shot a soldier or planted an IED.

US soldiers should consider that anyone they capture may be released in their hometown. I think a “take no prisoners” policy would solve that problem.

But I digress. Helene, here’s a question you can ask, next time you’re called upon. I would say you could call the press office and ask on your own, but c’mon, you’re just a REPORTER. The question is this. How are people in New York suffering from lung problems as a result of “overseas contingency operations”? You’re in New York, so you probably remember what I’m talking about. But Obama’s new – he may NOT remember. So here’s some background, just in case you forgot the case I’m speaking of.

Around the turn of this century, in the first year of a new President, one of these “overseas contingency operations” was carried out by people who don’t yet like us (formerly known as ‘the enemy’). There was significant property damage in New York, as well as in Washington. The airlines, as they are wont to do, also suffered. There was some loss of life, though I’m sure it must have been unintentional.  Shockingly, after this event in the “overseas contingency operations” many firefighters and policemen came down with lung problems. Ms. Cooper, it was reported in your own paper, so I’m sure it’s true. I hear that the lung problems are costing the city quite a bit of money.

So, here’s the question. Will President ask Congress for a law outlawing “overseas contingency operations” on US soil? Perhaps he could work with the UN Human Rights Comission. Or the G20. But shouldn’t we outlaw operations on US soil? After all, our laws apply to everyone involved in those “overseas contingency operations” so any legislation we pass will be binding for the people who don’t yet like us. I’m sure the courts would uphold the law, as everyone is against dust clouds these days.

Remember the controversy over Bush firing Attorneys General? Here’s an article that might refresh your memory. There were Congressional hearings, demands that Bush remove his AG over the matter, and general outrage that Bush would overstep his authority by firing his own political appointees (seriously).

This week, Obama fired Rick Wagoner. He doesn’t work at Justice. He doesn’t work at the White House. In fact, he’s not in government at all. He’s the CEO of GM. You know, that privately held company that has a board of directors, and stockholders, both of whom voted to hire him and haven’t changed their mind.

So, just so I understand the rules. It’s WRONG to fire people if you hired them. But it’s RIGHT to fire people you didn’t hire?  I’m not sure I can figure this out on my own. Can someone explain?

So, House member Eric Cantor (R-Va), voted Present for the Pay for Performance act. The act would give government the ability to set employee compensation at private firms.  From Reuters:

The bill, which passed on a 247-171 vote, would give the U.S. Treasury broad powers to prohibit “unreasonable and excessive” compensation and bonuses that are not based on performance standards.

Earlier, Cantor had voted for the measure that would’ve taxed AIG retention bonuses at 90%. So he’s moving in the right direction, maybe? Not likely.  While Cantor claims his vote of Present was due to a conflict of interest (his wife works at a bank) it’s more likely that he’s trying to stay on the site of the pitchfork brigade.

Why side with the mob, Eric? There’s right, and there’s wrong. It’s true that government shouldn’t be in the bailout business. It’s ALSO true that Government shouldn’t set the salaries of private companies.  You can’t fix a wrong with another wrong. Not only is it incorrect, Pay for Performance Act will drive the best minds OUT of struggling companies. Does that really seem like the best way to save them?

Clearly, I’m wasting my breath. Cantor has shown his stripes. The field guide says he’s just another politician. Perhaps the man of principles is extinct, after all.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconson said “Now, that I know — which I didn’t at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t have voted the same way”. He blamed his lack of knowledge for the speed with which the measure was written and introduced.  “Nobody had time to review it,” Ryan said. 

I have two MAJOR problems with this.  Problem #1. If you’re not clear as to the contents of a bill, read it again (this particular bill was pretty short, page wise). If you’re still not clear, don’t vote on it.

Problem number two is a little bigger. If you’re unclear as to the Constitutionality of a measure, don’t support it! A Congressman’s job is to defend the Constitution. That’s what he says in his oath. Clearly, Rep. Ryan needs to study the founding documents of our country a little more. The term “bill of attainder” had gotten fairly broad coverage when the idea of taxing AIG execs came up. Did he look into that term? Does he know what it means? Does Ryan understand why it’s wrong to use taxes to target small groups of people?

I’m dismayed that a GOP Representative doesn’t understand the Constitutional implications of legislation on which he’s voting. To me, that’s a sign of how far we’ve come in the wrong direction.