Values Forming the Rights of Human Life

SPACESUIT MADE OF FLESHPodcast Show authored and read by MAYASONETTE LAMBKISSon January 6th, 2024, Hawaiion behalf of the Institute of Universal Human Rights - HAWAIIEpisode 8: VALUES FORMING THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN LIFEValues are deeply held beliefs guiding attitudes, behavior, decisions. We already discussed the nine highest rated American values of the US citizens in an earlier episode. Today we are going to look into the most significant legal documents forming this country that influence public opinion on values about the rights of a human being in society, and how we perceive the value of a human life. It would be a mistake to compare the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Universal Human Rights without a deeper study of their author's mind and chosen leadership path for comparison first. Second, we will compare the two documents for form and structure as legal documents, qualitative content of their fundamental messages, and lastly, the influence they have on our historical and current political atmosphere. Thomas Jefferson's objective creating the D.I. was to fight for and protect the freedom of a new birthing country against tyranny, which is the greed and selfish power of one individual, while Eleanor Roosevelt was on the path to protect the fundamental freedom of the individual human against the greed and selfish acts of society in large. Jefferson's vision was to form a country based on new world values of the individual, and each and every grievance against the king was a collective right of this new country to be protected even by the threat of a gruesome war, while Eleanor Roosevelt's vision was to form a coalition of countries to protect the rights of the suffering individual in gruesome war against crime. Both documents are legal documents, therefore formalize and define legal rights, guaranteed by law, and reinforceable by law, they are written for such reason, and filed at court. To declare something, it means to make a statement of truth in writing, just as if someone made that same statement at court. It legally binds someone to make a true statement to authority, then to the government, and then make it public, and if it is found untrue, the writer legally perjured himself. The writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence appointed themselves, they made the formation of the coalition of 13 states official and legally enforceable, all relevant parties have been officially informed of their actions, and the content has been made public to the people. If they had lost the war the same document would have become a false statement, and its writers be guilty in the King's court of perjury and other things. The same thing is true for the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which is an international legal document, a coalition between originally 48 countries, but today of 193 countries, and their enemies are organized crime, international crime, war crimes, and any form of crimes against humanity. While the war for Independence lasted through a few years of chaos, it created order and invented a new form of society. But the war for the respect and freedom of the individual never seems to end, it is continuously current, and every offense only challenges our very humanity. Is it true, that the writers of the D.U.H.R. perjure themselves every time we lose the fight against a human trafficking brothel, whenever an illegal organ-hunter gets away from justice, or a sweatshop continues to operate for decades with forced labor in a hostile environment? Why? Why are they not guilty of perjury declaring the fundamental right of every human to life if they guarantee to millions their right to life, yet the fight is lost on millions of fronts per day? What is the nature of a...