Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights: a do-gooder scheme for centralized planning
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 01/04/2013 7:40:13 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica

"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
Frederic Bastiat - Economic Harmonies - 1.83

How do you know what's an actual right? A god given, inalienable right; and what's a right conferred by the state, fostered by a demagogue? For some of us, those who read history, the answer to the question is easy. Knowing the difference is almost even instinctual. By comparing documents and known quantities, we can make a reasonable argument in favor of one and against the other.

On January 11, 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his eleventh State of the Union Address, which contains the so called "Second Bill of Rights": (video)

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Yeah? So what's wrong with that?

Well, first off, in front of the cameras they made sure to make everything sound real good and attractive. But behind the scenes, this is the kind of advice that FDR was receiving:

1. A strong, centralized government.

2. An Executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and jucicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees.

3. The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.

5. The underwriting of social security by the government - old-age pensions, mothers' pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.

6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing these essentials. Other nations are far along the road.

7. The use of the deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity.

8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

9. The control of foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.

10. The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency

11. The control of energy sources - hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.

12. The control of transportation - railway, highway, airway, waterway.

13. The control of agricultural production.

14. The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.

15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.

16. Heavy taxation, with especial emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

17. not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.

18. State control of communications and propaganda.

One of FDR's advisors wrote that. Stuart Chase. Numbers 1, 4, and 6 are directly relevant to the new bill of rights. In order for government to give everybody a decent home, give everybody adequate food, you would have to achieve a strong centralized government, which underwrites food, housing, and employment.

From there, numbers 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 16 would have to be implemented to make the system work. I use this phrase "make the system work" on purpose. I'll explain as we go forward.

(Others on Chase's list, such as 5, 15, 17, and 18 were put in place elsewhere in the FDR legislative program, outside of the new bill of rights.)

Have you ever read the Constitution of Cuba? You should. In the context of FDR's "Second Bill of Rights", you'll see familiar things there. Particularly in article 9:

ARTICLE 9. The state:

a) carries out the will of the working people and

b) as the power of the people and for the people, guarantees

c) works to achieve that no family be left without a comfortable place to live.

Those are the pillars of Article 9. Under those parts of Article 9 you will find:

a) carries out the will of the working people and

- directs in a planned way the national economy;

Other parts of section a make it clear that government is involved with every aspect of life.

b) as the power of the people and for the people, guarantees

- that every man or woman, who is able to work, have the opportunity to have a job with which to contribute to the good of society and to the satisfaction of individual needs;

- that no disabled person be left without adequate mean of subsistence;

- that no sick person be left without medical care;

- that no child be left without schooling, food and clothing;

- that no young person be left without the opportunity to study;

- that no one be left without access to studies, culture and sports;

All of this is virtually identical to the Second Bill of Rights. But Cuba is a totalitarian state. What does government guaranteeing a house have to do with that? Especially since this is the Constitution of 1992. Well, there's another place we can look, the Soviet Constitution, part X. That's much closer to FDR's lifetime: 1936. What do we see?

ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education.

Notice how similar the Soviet and Cuban Constitutions are to Stuart Chase's list? As well as the Second Bill of Rights?

In order to understand the difference of rights; God given and inalienable(notice those words are not in the Cuban/USSR constitutions) you have to examine the effect upon the lives of others. Or, a FDR himself would've put it, "The Forgotten Man".

There are no Home Depots in Cuba, to my knowledge, and that's directly attributable to their constitution. You see, if you have a right to a home, and the government is in position to see to it that that right is honored, then you have free reign to walk into any Home Depot and take what you want. "But I need this plywood, tar, and shingles. My roof is leaking". It's no wonder there aren't any Home Depots in Cuba. And it's easy to see how the mechanism for Chase's #1 item, "A strong, centralized government" is necessary to make the system work.

Your right to a home directly infringes upon the other person's "right" to employment, as listed in various different ways above.(I would encourage you to repeatedly read the lists I've outlined)

But it's not just about a direct infringement upon someone else's right to get paid for their work and the quality of it, this goes one step further. By guaranteeing such false rights, this is how Cuban and Soviet dictatorships are maintained, fostered, and cemented. A right to a house means you own the Home Depot employees. They are your slaves. They can't by law refuse you plywood, tar, and shingles. the same thing goes for all of these so called rights.

Contrast that with those rights as enumerated in the American bill of rights, which are endowed by our Creator. The first amendment, the right to free speech. My right to free speech does not have you obligated in any way. That is ultimately the difference. Same goes for the second amendment. If I go buy a gun, or a second gun, you are not obligated in any way. Our rights are completely compartmentalized.(for lack of a better word) You can go right down the list.

(The only one that immediately stands out as having an obligation is the right to a jury of peers. But take a minute to examine what a jury of peers replaced - a Monarch's arbitrary decision. The need for juries is obvious - it's anti totalitarian)

With the so called "rights", as enumerated by the Soviet, Cuban, or Second Bill of Rights, others become drastically obligated. Not only is the state the ultimate arbiter, but your neighbor is equally enabled to have certain power over your life. Article 120 of the USSR constitution nearly gives the whole thing away: "and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people" - All of those doctors are slaves. Every one of them. Their government runs their lives, their neighbors run their life. When you examine it from front to back, it becomes easier to see why someone would consider floating across the Strait of Florida to be a good idea, now doesn't it?

"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
Frederic Bastiat - Economic Harmonies - 1.83

I quote this for you again, because I don't want any reader to come away with the wrong message. It's not my intent to call FDR a communist. Not because I'm afraid to do so, because it doesn't matter. FDR was a central planner. That's dangerous enough, even moreso, because communists are a known quantity. Sadly, not enough people think in terms of "centralized planning". Part of the reason why central planners keep making advance is because of the titles they use and throw away. Chase was not a communist. So should I not worry about him?

One of the things that shows up in all of these "rights" lists is the right to leisure.(FDR says recreation, the Cuban Constitution says "sports") This should just go to show that these people have a much more sinister intent. Even if you did decide that you agreed that one or more of these should be a right..... recreation and sports? This is tyranny's disguise.

Now, I suppose there may be someone who comes across this writing and says to themselves that it would be a great thing to have as your slave someone like Tim Tebow. "Entertain me. You have to. I have the right to it". Until you stop and remember that you work at Home Depot. Now you're Tebow's slave, his back door is broken. Fix it.

The Second Bill of Rights doesn't sound like such a good thing after all, now does it? As I said, this is tyranny's disguise.

It would be a mistake to think that the Second Bill of Rights is some dusty old concept. The big labor bosses are a huge fan of these "new rights". Their list of rights is even more vague, which makes them all even more dangerous. Government must at all times be kept in a box.

In all of the instances listed above, the state gains a huge command over the property of the individual, and when the state commands the property of the individual, the state commands the individual. Ronald Reagan said in 1964: (video)

"The full power of centralized government" - this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

As we've seen by our readings of portions of two constitutions, and a Presidential SOTU, Ronald Reagan was right. Reagan's always right.

TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: progressingamerica

1 posted on 01/04/2013 7:40:23 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Albertafriend; preacher; Anima Mundi; frithguild; ColoCdn; Old Sarge; LambSlave; SatinDoll; ...
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

2 posted on 01/04/2013 7:43:04 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a YouTube generation? Put it on YouTube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Thank you! Excellent! Saving and forwarding.

So, how do we stop this? They are all in place in our legislature?

Answer: the States, States Rights, local control.

Repeal Amendment 17. Senators to be voted into office by State Legislatures specifically the State Houses.

THEN we would get a budget the people demand, and expenditures that can be met which should be met, and those that don’t, NOT.

3 posted on 01/04/2013 8:02:24 AM PST by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Thank you for your commitment to "discuss(ing) their history."

At the bottom of it all, the history is one of replacing America's unique idea of a "Creator-People-Government" form of self-government with the same old tyrannical idea of "Government-over-People" arrangement which disavows inherent, unalienable Creator-endowed life, rights and laws, with self-appointed elites in "government" assuming the role of God and, thus, the "grantors" of artificial rights to their fellow citizens.

What a sham these so-called "progressives" have perpetrated on a once-free people!

Once, they called themselves "liberals." Now, they boldly proclaim the title, "progressives."

Back in the Year 1876 a Black Methodist Minister and Ohio Legislator, at a celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, identified the then-"liberal" movement to erase and replace the founding ideas, in his "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon," delivered at the St. Paul A.M.E. Church in Urbana, Ohio, on November 30. He was Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, and his warning of their agenda was delivered toward the end of that Sermon, in the following words:

"The Danger to our Country.

"Now that our national glory and grandeur is principally derived from the position the fathers took on the great questions of right and wrong, and the career of this nation has been unparalleled in the history of the past, now there are those who are demanding the tearing down the strength of our national fabric. They may not intend to tear it down, but just as sure as they have their way, just that sure will they undermine our superstructure and cause the greatest calamity of the age. What are the demands of this party of men? Just look at it and examine it for yourselves, and see if you are willing that they shall have their way; or will you still assist in keeping the ship of state in the hands of the same crew and run her by the old gospel chart! But ye men who think there is no danger listen to the demands of the Liberals as they choose to call themselves:

"'Organize! Liberals of America! The hour for action has arrived. The cause of freedom calls upon us to combine our strength, our zeal, our efforts. These are The Demands of Liberalism:

"'1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.

"'2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.

"'3. We demand that all public appropriations for sectarian educational and charitable institutions shall cease.

"'4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

"'5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.

"'6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.

"'7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

"'8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.

"'9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.'

"'Let us boldly and with high purpose meet the duty of the hour.'

"Now we must not think that we have nothing to do in this great work, for the men who are at the head of this movement are men of culture and intelligence, and many of them are men of influence. They are led by that thinker and scholar, F. E. Abbott, than whom I know but few men who has a smoother pen, or who is his equal on the battle-field of thought. He says in an address on the duty of his leagues:

"'My answer may be a negative one to all who see nothing positive in the idea of liberty. The conviction I refer to is this: that, regarded as a theological system, Christianity is Superstition, and, regarded as an organized institution, Christianity is Slavery. The purpose I refer to is this: that, whether regarded as theological system, Christianity shall wholly cease to exercise influence in political matters. Although the national Constitution is strictly secular and non-Christian, there are many things in the practical administration of the government which violate its spirit, and constitute a virtual recognition of Christianity as the national religion. These violations are very dangerous; they are on the increase; they more and more give Christianity a practical hold upon the government; they directly tend to strengthen the influence of Christianity over the people, and to fortify it both as a theology and a church; and they are therefore justly viewed with growing indignation by liberals. Not unreasonably are they looked upon as paving the way to a formidable effort to carry the Christian Amendment to the Constitution; and the liberals are beginning to see that they must extinguish the conflagration in its commencement. I believe all this myself, with more intense conviction every day; and therefore I appeal frankly to the people to begin now to lay the foundations of a great National Party of Freedom. It is not a moment too soon. If the liberals are wise, they will see the facts as they are, and act accordingly. Not with hostility, bitterness, defiance, or anger but rather with love to all men and high faith in the beneficence of consistently republican institutions, do I urge them most earnestly to begin the work at once.'

"He acknowledges that this is a religious nation and wants all men to assist him in eliminating the grand old granite principles from the framework of our national union. Will you do it freeman; will we sell the temple reared at the cost of so much precious blood and treasure? These men would have us turn back the hands on the clock of our national progress, and stay the shadow on the dial plate of our christian civilization; they would have us call a retreat to the soldiers in the army of Christ; the banner of the cross they would have us haul down, and reverse the engines of war against sin and crime; the songs of Zion they would turn into discord, and for the harmony and the melody of the sons of God, they would give us general confusion; they would have us chain the forces of virtue and unloose the elements of vice; they would have the nation loose its moorings from the Lord of truth and experience and commit interest, morally, socially; religiously and politically to the unsafe and unreliable human reason; they would discharge God and his crew and run the ship of State by the light of reason, which has always been but a dim taper in the world, and all the foot-prints it has left are marked with the blood of men, women and children. No nation is safe when left alone with reason.

"But we have no notion of giving up the contest without a struggle or a battle. We are aware that there is a great commotion in the world of thought. Religion and science are at arms length contending with all their forces for the mastery. Faith and unbelief are fighting their old battles over again, everything that can be shaken is shaking. The foundations of belief are assaulted by the army of science and men are changing their opinions. New and starting theories are promulgated to the world; old truths are putting on new garbs. Error is dressing in the latest style, wrong is secured by the unholy alliances, changes in men and things, revolution in church and state, Empires are crumbling, Kingdoms tottering; everywhere the change is seen. In the social circle, in the school house, in the pulpit and in the pews. But amid all the changes are revolutions their are some things that are unchangeable, unmovable and enduring. The forces that underline the vital power of Christianity are the same yesterday, to-day, to-morrow and forever more. They are like their God, who is omnipotent, immovable and eternal, and everywhere truth has marched it has left its moccasin tracks."

End of excerpt from Arnett "Centennial . . . ."

As we read these words from 1876, is it possible that the consequences of the call to "liberals" cited therein are being seen in our society today?

4 posted on 01/04/2013 8:55:48 AM PST by loveliberty2 ( -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

In terms of the r/K ratio, it also explains why the human race appears to be a blend of 80% sex-crazy polygamous war monkeys mixed with less than 20% monogamous, conservative, stable and long term strategy thinkers. It explains why everything that the 20% build up the 80% will immediately endeavor to tear down. Once you can explain this, you have explained almost everything important. Deep in his heart, Homo Sapiens is a rape ape who wants to kill everything and the Neanderthal remnant will never be able to hold the line against these lunatic creatures. That’s why civilization is always in decline. Saps always has bloodshot eyes and a euphoric expression talking about “progress” and “openmindedness” because he is insane. There is nothing that lasts long with mankind for this reason. Mind you, the evidence is that the worst change-revolutionary-junkies come from different strains of Neanderthal gene expression itself (Mousterians) but it is the general madness of the Sapiens breed as a whole that makes him so receptive to all of this agitprop and so eager to listen to it’s message of self-destruction. Part of his innermost essence resents all these restrictions on his “natural self” and principles of conduct that are so innate to Neanderthals. He wants to be “liberated” from whatever temporary organization that the Neanderthal remnant is able to assemble and go back to his “real self,” which is a bloody vicious warlike chimpanzee who answers to no law but tooth and claw. The two breeds don’t belong together and are no more compatible than oil and water in the same bottle. You can’t mix them no matter how many rapists insist otherwise

5 posted on 01/04/2013 5:06:52 PM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson