Pelosi: A Safe Environment is a Human Right

Look out, here comes tomorrow.

"We have so much room for improvement. Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility" for solving climate change and creating healthy environments.

"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer. It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right."

"We are all in this together. The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries."

All of these quotes from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Chinese school children and to Chinese officials, this week.

The Associated Press noted that the trip was long on environmental policy and very, very skimpy on "her usual criticism of human rights" violations.

Instead, she proclaimed that "the right to a clean environment is a human right."

Once again this demonstrates how dangerous the concept of "positive rights" are to individual liberty.

"The right to a clean environment" becomes a human right, and governments consider themselves empowered to subject "every aspect of our lives" to regulation -- "inventory" is Mizz Pelosi's code word.

"People have a right to housing." Suddenly governments consider themselves empowered to jigger with real estate financing and markets. (What could possibly go wrong there?)

"People have a right to health care." Well, if you don't work to make money or to qualify for employer-provided health insurance, then the government must provide your health care -- after all, it's a right, isn't it?

But the more powers a government assumes to grant all these "positive" rights, the less room there is for individuals to assert their "unalienable" rights granted to them by Nature's God. There is an inherent conflict between a government trying to provide all the "positive" stuff it has declared, in its omnipotence, that people have a right to, and individuals merely trying to retain a sliver of their independence. It is an irreconcilable conflict. It can't be done.

That doesn't bother today's progressive leaders.

But it should bother you.

Torturous News on Capitol Hill for Nancy

Leon Panetta isn't exactly Dick Cheney, so when he tells CIA employees to "ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission" because no one was lied to, it should mean something.

Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened. [Emphasis DTO]

So I guess it's Nancy versus Leon now.

Seriously, this woman is unhinged. She's obviously caught between so many rocks and hard places that her squirming attempts to negotiate a safe passage are difficult to watch. A tangled web, indeed.

It is only a matter of time before definitive proof becomes public. Already those in the know are cutting their ties. The good ship Nancy is soon to be floating all alone, except for the bobbing heads of all the hangers-on, true-believin' moonbats who insist that our patriotic duty is to hate America first.

She should do herself a favor, and the country, by resigning from Congress.

Pelosi's Prescription for America

Were you afraid Congress had forgotten about socialized health care?

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House this year will consider health-care legislation including an option for a government-run program that would compete with insurers.

“This is a big agenda, and I believe it should have a public option in it for it to be really substantial,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference in the U.S. Capitol. [snip]

Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House will be “aggressive” in its approach to a health-care overhaul, which is a centerpiece of Obama’s agenda. She said a government role in health care will help U.S. companies be more competitive.

“This is not only about the health of individuals in our country, which will be justification enough,” said Pelosi, a California Democrat. “It’s about the competitiveness of our businesses to make them globally competitive because they are competing with companies and countries where the federal government -- their governments -- pay for health care. They don’t have to bear those health care costs.”

My gosh, this woman is such a genius! Not! She has no clue that the reason the American health care system is the best in the world -- still, despite existing government intrusion -- is because other governments in the world have already ruined their health-care systems. And she thinks this is a freakin' selling point?

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government should "get health care insurance premiums off the books of private business so that they can be competitive globally"?

It doesn't.

Pelosi & The Pope Revisited

If the Pope meets with the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and no video equipment or photographers are allowed, did the meeting really happen?

That's the humor behind a more serious analysis of why the Vatican prevented photo and video records of the recent meeting Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi. This was an unusual restriction but apparently the pontiff thought it necessary so that Pelosi would not use such imagery to convey an image to American voters that she and the pope are buddies.

So why did Pelosi get the no-photos treatment?

Before Pelosi’s visit, false rumors had been swirling on the Internet that the pope was going to present her with an award. Instead, the pope told her that all Catholics, especially lawmakers, must work to protect life at every stage. The pope’s message to Pelosi, a Catholic Democrat, was clearly aimed at reversing her support for keeping abortion legal.

In not releasing photos, the Vatican minimized the encounter and at the same time carefully controlled perceptions of the meeting. A Vatican statement released after the meeting said the pope “briefly greeted” Pelosi. The statement said “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”

While the Vatican’s statement focused on abortion, Pelosi’s statement after the meeting had a different take. She said that she praised “the church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel.”

Two very different views of the same meeting, each party carefully controlling the message.

Would a photo of Pelosi and the pope together change perceptions of their meeting?

On walls throughout the world hang countless images of individuals meeting the pope. The formula used in the photos is tried and true: A smiling pope and a smiling subject meeting each other and shaking hands. The images convey an implicit connection with the pope and imply a sense of the pontiff bestowing his favor on the subject.

For all their simplicity, these images are very powerful. For many they are treasured keepsakes, but they are also used by countless people to promote themselves and their causes.

In not allowing photos of Pelosi meeting the pope, the Vatican recognized the power of the still image and its ability to be interpreted and used in many ways. Unlike a written statement, a still image is much more open to having many different interpretations.

And who said the Vatican isn't media savvy?

-------

GRATUITOUS SELF-CONGRATULATORY NOTE - This is post 1,100.