Gordon Brown, Britain’s New Liberal Fundamentalist Leader, Discovers a New Right, and Hillary Celebrates

 by Joseph BH McMillan  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Why is it that every new "right" seems to cost an extraordinary amount of money.

January 7th, 2008, is a day that will go down in infamy; but nevertheless, a day the people of the world will forever celebrate; a day when the people of the world will pay homage to the man who made one of the greatest "discoveries" the world has ever had the good fortune to witness.

Britain’s new Liberal Fundamentalist "leader" discovered a brand new "right." That’s right, a brand new right.

But before the world is blessed by the revelation of their new "right," let us go back a few months; back to July 31, 2007, at the United Nations.

There, before the despots and crackpots of the nations of the world, Gordon revealed “a remarkable moment — the whole world coming together as one, the leadership of the poorest countries to be empowered by the obligations accepted by the richest. All of us accepting our shared responsibilities to work together for change.”

Now many of you may be wondering when exactly you accepted the "obligation" to empower the “leadership [for which read the corrupt leaders] of the poorest countries,” but it was “seven years ago . . . in this United Nations conclave . . . with the eyes of the whole world upon us all . . . that every world leader, every international body, almost every single country signed a historic declaration for the new millennium, pledging to set and then to meet by 2015 eight development goals.”

The "obligation" we accepted was to cough up large quantities of cash to relieve “the greatest of evils that touches the deepest places of conscience” of the likes of Gordon Brown and his Liberal Fundamentalist comrades.

And the reason we have an "obligation" to relieve their consciences is that the despots and crackpots of the "developing nations" are so incompetent and corrupt that their consciences are not moved by the degradations and humiliations they visit on their own people so long as their Western bank accounts are stuffed full of our money, and their villas in the South of France are in pristine condition for when they have to escape the wrath of their own people.

As an aside, I often wonder why we bother with the charade of sending our money to the Third World when we could just buy the "leaders" of those countries their mansions in the West, and make regular payments into their Swiss bank accounts. The late Yasser Arafat’s wife was just such a case – while we were all being told of the need to send the Palestinians money, it was simply being used to pay for her two floors of suites at the Ritz Hotel in Paris – why not send it direct?? Oh yes, I forgot, the consciences of our leaders!!

Anyway, let me get back to Gordon. So what exactly is the "principle" that underlies our "obligation" to make Third World despots rich? “The principle is that by investing money now in addressing the causes of poverty and underdevelopment we save money that we would have to spend later on addressing the symptoms. In this way the rates of return from investment are greater than the cost of borrowing and make it cost effective.”

Wow, Gordon is a financial genius. The only problem is that we have been spending money for decades, and things have only got worse – just look at Gaza.

But that does not deter the likes of Gordon. We can apply this financial model for "conscience relief" to other areas as well. Here’s Gordon again with another pearl of wisdom: “This approach however is relevant to other areas too: it can be extended to building the capacity for the provision of health care itself – indeed for the very creation of national health services [in Third World countries].”

By golly, Gordon wants to set up and pay for Third World “national health services” when he can’t even provide and pay for an effective and functional one in his own country. And although he cannot find the money to back-date a 2.5% payraise for Britain’s police force, he has "found it in his heart" to give 825 million pounds ($1.6 billion) in development aid to India, with almost half for, you guessed it, health.

Which brings me back to the moment you have all been waiting for – your new RIGHT.

The enormity of this discovery is so overwhelming that I almost hesitate to pronounce it.

But here it is: “Health care is not a privilege to be purchased but a MORAL RIGHT secured by all.”

And the people of the world are beside themselves with joy – no longer will anyone have to “purchase” health care!! We all have a "right" to it, and not just any old run of the mill right, but a superior and new kind of right – a MORAL RIGHT.

Hillary and Bill are also dancing a jig of joy. They now have a “moral right” to underpin universal health care. And, as Gordon has said, universal will mean universal, not just American – because, remember, we have an "obligation."

But is this “right” in the Constitution? Well, it is probably one of those rights lurking in Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights – one of those rights not specifically enumerated, but one that was just waiting to be discovered – and all credit to Gordon Brown for the discovery.

Yet, you may still have a niggling doubt. Is there really such a thing as a free lunch, or in this case, a free health service? Well, as usual there is a catch. The right is “secured by all.” “Secured by all” – what a wonderfully innocuous way to justify theft. This new “moral right” is nothing more than a “moral obligation” imposed on some to pay for the health care of others. This “moral right” vests in the likes of Gordon Brown the power to determine what amount of your hard earned money he will take, under threat of incarceration should you decline the moral obligation it imposes, in order to relieve his own conscience.

In reality then, this new "moral right" is nothing less than a "right" given to some to appropriate the hard earned money of others. It is a "right" that imposes an obligation on some to finance the right of others. It is a right awarded to some by taking away a right from others – their right to liberty and property.

But this is what is known today as "social justice!"

And it demonstrates the true nature of these silly things we call rights. As Justice Scalia said – “You want a right . . . — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way.”

But in Gordon’s case, he needn’t persuade anyone; he simply declares it. And in the United States, it seems that the Scalia formula for the creation of just such a right is now well under way; the majority, it seems, think such a new right is a good idea, and if Hillary or Obama are elected, the American people too will be blessed with their new “moral right.”

So while political leaders in the United States are trying to work out how to stave off recession, and limit the number of people who will lose their homes because they can’t pay their mortgages, and while banks like the Northern Rock are going bust in the UK, we can at least all be grateful that we will no longer have to worry about “purchasing” health care – we now have a "right" to it, as does the rest of the world. Talk about a rescue package? The pure genius of the man Gordon!!

Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Environment, Animal Rights, Health Issues, & Drugs

Read more articles by Joseph BH McMillan