The Left’s Rights Scam


The left invariably frames its policy pronouncements under the mantle of so-called “rights” that only the government can guarantee.  The implication being that all citizens are entitled and guaranteed, by virtue of living in the United States, to what is defined as a “right.”  Much of this current approach by the so-called Progressives stems from the State of the Union address delivered by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 in which he laid out what is commonly referred to as the “Second Bill of Rights.”  It is a consolidation of socialist thinking begun in the mid-nineteenth century.

These tenets, never contemplated by the founding fathers as God-given rights, have nonetheless become the foundational principle of the Democratic Party.  Democrats’ successful attempt, along with the tacit concurrence of many in the Republican Party, to force this dogma on American society has entailed at least partial realization of the following:

  • 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 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 economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; and
  • The right to a good education.
email

V2A tagged this post with:
,
Read 1864 articles by
  • http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland

    "The Ninth Amendment is inclusive of all rights, at any given time, claimed or allowed by the people – oftentimes by a minority. These rights include natural rights, human rights, civil rights, political rights, and women’s rights. They also include the right to murder your unborn child, the right to commit sodomy, and the right to openly worship and promote gods other than Yahweh. (Because violations of the First Commandment were legitimized by the Amendment 1, the 'right' to violate this Commandment is not unenumerated, but instead the right to worship other gods than Yahweh has been specifically legalized by the First Amendment.) Anyone who thinks this list of 'rights' misrepresents Amendment 9 needs to consider that the Ninth Amendment was employed in Roe v. Wade to legalize infanticide….

    "The theory of unalienable or natural rights can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment. The term 'natural rights,' as employed by 18th-century men, is not compatible with the Bible. Deuteronomy 28 does not say we have a natural, human, or civil right to anything. Rather, we must serve Yahweh as God in order to receive His blessings….

    "Instead of endowing us with rights, Yahweh expects righteousness from us. People who demand their rights are like children, focused only on themselves. People who pursue righteousness are focused on Yahweh and their fellow man. The former person promotes a government of, by, and for the people; the latter person promotes a government of, by, and for Yahweh."

    For more, see "Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

  • Old Veteran

    I've always thought the phrase " pursuit of HAPPINESS" covered ALL of the "rights" in this article. I can't imagine any American looking to live in poverty, not wanting to "earn" SOMETHING. Even the occupiers EARN, free food, tents, sleeping bags. They had to travel to the sites, stand around and chant, thus THEY'VE "WORKED" towards a "happiness". How can "added" rights be found? As to the wealthy HAVING TO SHARE THEIR WEALTH WITH THOSE WHO ARE NOT, the "not haves" will have to "earn" their place to receive the "free" stuff. I picture a pack of "hyenas" fighting over "access" to the pile………………….The day will come when people LIKE Obummer will be back biting to get something………..feeding frenzies……………….

    • Big Ugly

      ….. the "pursuit" of happiness ….. not the attainment thereof.

      ….. the right to an education ….. not the "right" to BE educated.

      All of these "Rights" require effort on the part of the recipient – if they are unwilling to do what is required to attain those right, then they have no right to those "rights" as then have WILLINGLY foregone the attainment thereor.

  • El Loco

    Without personal responsibility, all the "rights" in the world are meaningless. Rights are earned, not given.

    • ccfonten

      And these so-called "rights" need to be protected after they are earned. Just like respect, you have to earn it and then work hard to maintain it.

  • Spense

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison: Considered the “father of the Constitution,” served as the fourth president of the U.S.(1809-1817). 4 Annals of Congress 179 (1794).

    "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government" ~ Thomas Jefferson

  • Mark

    You have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the achievement of which is not guaranteed. That is all.

  • Big Ugly

    I beg to differ – a RIGHT is granted not "earned".
    However, if one is not willing to do what is required to maintain those "Rights", then those 'Rights" are willingly forfeit.

    Take the Second Amendment for example.
    God granted us the right to provide for our own protection and security – by what ever means we should so desire (as long as that does not interfere with the "Rights" of others)
    The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES (not grants) that those God-Given Rights will not be infringed or abridged.
    However if our "government" does not abide by their guarantees what recourse do you have to force them to meet the terms of the contract they offered and freely entered into.
    If you are not willing to 'pull a trigger' to enforce the guarantees that your "Rights" will be respected, then YOU, and no one else, have willingly given over your "Rights" and accepted the "privilege" from your masters, instead of your "Rights" from The Master.

  • roy

    The opportunity for Happyness is the Right, not the Governments pushing rights on you for voteing for there Socialist demands. Forceing you to abide by what they dictate is or isnot what you should have. Thats why they ended slavery. But the Demarats never read that, and Nancy Pilousy is a prime example pass it then we can read whats in it. The Demarts still have the African Americans as slave to there (Vote for me I'll give you stuff) attitude. Not that you need to work for it, I'll take it from those that have it, and give it to you.

  • Looking4Sanity

    …And THAT was the exact moment when the socialist nanny State declared itself god! Small wonder these people like the name "Progressive". Ever since their "emaculation" things have gotten progressively worse!

    When this country was founded, it was dedicated to the purpose of preserving Freedom and goodness and fighting tyranny and evil.

    Look around you and ask yourself, Has the battle been won…or lost?

  • awakenow

    This article is excellent. It is very well thought out and exactly what Ron Paul has been advocating, which is to NOT to allow the growth of FDR's "socialist" vision of Big Government … the same Big Government which under both parties has gotten us where we are today. Facing a Debt to GDP Ratio of 100%. Where we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar.

    The difference between Ron Paul and all the other candidates, is that he truly BELIEVES in the Constitution and the wise words of the Founders. He believes that the power of the federal government should be limited to only those enumerated, laid out in the Constitution.

    He believes that the crisis we now face, in terms of the breadth and depth of our massive debt, could have been avoided if past administrations and Congresses had only believed in the Constitution, too. Sadly, that did not happen and our Republic, based on the belief that individual freedoms are everything, that big government seeks to control the individual, is now in shambles.

    The most basic rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" all depend on the individual being free to seek them, not under the thumb of socialist, or fascist, or oligarchy governance. Take your pick of the aforementioned because there is actually little difference between them … they all seek to exert their control over the people and concentrate it in the hands of the few, as they seek to destroy our Free Republic.

    I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when he was asked whether this country now has a Monarchy or a Republic. His response: "A Republic, if you can keep it.” http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html.

    • Looking4Sanity

      If that were ALL he believed in, I'd be inclined to support him. It's his insane SOCIAL and FOREIGN POLICY positions that make it impossible for me to support him!

      That is exactly the same problem Barry Goldwater had in 1964! He had Republicans voting against him in DROVES! Ron Paul would fare even worse than Goldwater for the same reasons.

  • awakenow

    Excellent article and truly reflective of where we are today and how we got here.

    The problem is that the Constitution has been disregarded. The solution is in the following of it. Ron Paul 2012.

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland

      The problem is that the Constitution disregarded God (Yahweh), Christ, His law and morality. In addition to it being a Godless and Christless contract with the people, there is hardly an article or amendment that is not antithetical to His morality and some that are hostile to His sovereignty.

      Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."

  • CelticGyrl

    We have the right to all those things-it's called opportunity. But nowhere in our laws is anyone guaranteed all these things for free!

    You have the opportunity to pursue an education which leads to jobs which leads to money and purchasing a home and then if you're really good you make alot more than "enough to make ends meet" and you too can own a private jet or yacht and go on $4 million dollar Hawaiian vacations!!

    The main cause of failure of the socialist model is eventually there are no more producers contributing to the collective assets of the group because the producers are fed up with working hard and having most of their proceeds given to those who don't produce, only take. So, everyone becomes a taker.

    Consider the college economics professor who put this activity to his class: everyone who made A's had to give 1/2 of their grade to those who were failing so that everyone was equal. The A students were outraged because they studied and worked hard for their grades while the failing students partied and cut class. This was an eye-opener for the students of the true function of "redistribution of wealth".

  • SEAN MURRY

    The left is a bunch of scammers.

  • The Truth

    Only God gives us rights, not the government.