FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You

How Judges Ignore the Constitution on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms Moussa81, iStock-1006474816
Don’t settle for inferior imitations and fall for the swindle that governments have legitimate authority to grant rights., iStock-1006474816

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- Tuesday was Bill of Rights Day, December 15, celebrating the ratification of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It’s a day I commemorate every year, either with a column or a post on my The War on Guns blog, sometimes with unexpected results.

Case in point: Two years ago I invited readers to “Have a Contemplative Bill of Rights Day,” to reflect on what the document and the rights it articulates mean. I posted a link to it on my Facebook page only to receive notice that it was blocked from others being able to see because it “goes against our community standards”!

If you think about it, it probably does.

This year brought another surprise to me, a recorded speech President Harry S. Truman gave on the importance of the Bill of Rights. I always appreciate seeing examples of how old school Democrats still had some understanding of the Constitution, or at least felt compelled to pay it lip service to the electorate. That’s why from time to time I remind readers of statements on the Second Amendment by John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey where they indicated they understood perfectly well that it was intended as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.

How times have changed.

Doing some research on Truman to put his speech into context, I noticed posts about his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and a “second bill of rights.” He had been the president who in 1941 first proclaimed Bill of Rights Day, so seeing what “New Deal” he had in mind caught my guarded interest.

Karl Marx could have written it:

  • 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 that’s missing is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Every time politicians presume to “improve” on the wisdom of the Founders, they screw everything up. The Bill of Rights had a preamble that made clear what their intent was:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It has “restrictive clauses” against the government. Unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, are “endowed by our Creator.” The Supreme Court understood that about the Second Amendment when it noted:

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Just be careful pointing that out. The last time I did in a national magazine, a few angry gun owners called me a “Trojan Horse,” an “idiot,” and a “clown,” and one even threatened to cancel his subscription.

Back to Roosevelt’s abomination: Every “right” there is not only “granted” by the government, but it also usurps power nowhere delegated to any branch by the Constitution. It empowers the central government to set wages and prices, mandate wealth transfers, and literally enslave the people in order to force them to provide education, housing and health care to others. And, of course, what an all-powerful government can grant, it can take away.

That’s what concerns me about President Donald Trump’s “Proclamation on Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2020.” He, or more likely his writers (and he just doesn’t catch it), have not learned a thing since ignoring pleas to correct the White House website assertion that “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms” (and it still says this a year-and-a-half later).

Before anybody turns into a clone of my Trojan Horse critics and gets mad at me for “Trump-bashing,” that the farthest thing from what I’ve been trying to do. I’ve been hoping someone who has his ear will take the man aside and let him know why taking fire out of the bellies of his core constituents is not pragmatic politics.  And I’ll  challenge anyone who wants to get into it to show me where they are regularly doing more to “stop the steal.”

Here’ my beef: By lumping the Bill of Rights with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the President of the United States is in effect placing a superior document that acknowledges real rights on a coequal footing as an inferior one that presumes government bestows them. High-sounding language aside, let me give you some examples from Article 29 where the UN shows its all-controlling hand:

  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Basically, they’re saying you’ll take what they give you and like it.  And no, you can’t have guns, that is, unless you work for them, and use them only to enforce their orders. These mere men have assigned to themselves the Creator-like ability to endow rights, albeit theirs are alienable. I can see where some would consider that not only tyrannical but blasphemous. (And I can see where “progressives” should get triggered over pronouns.)

Let’s hope someone brings the difference between worldviews to the president’s attention so that if the steal is stopped, next year his message will reflect that understanding. It’s for damn sure a President Harris (don’t be surprised) will have no incentive to do anything but exploit the lie as she “creates” a right to be free from “gun violence” and a duty to disarm.

Also see:


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
10 months ago

Be careful where you get your information from! What you state came directly from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html

Dave in Fairfax
Dave in Fairfax
10 months ago

AND Trump has refuted it. Disinformation is a wonderful thing. Done right you can get your enemies to climb on board and spout it for you.

Capn Dad
Capn Dad
10 months ago

Resistance is duty.

Last edited 10 months ago by Capn Dad
Capn Dad
Capn Dad
10 months ago

They can only take your country if you are willing to give it to them.

TheRevelator
TheRevelator
10 months ago
Reply to  Capn Dad

Bingo. The problem is that too many people have forgotten Niemoller’s lesson.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  TheRevelator

Didn’t take a large percentage to send the British packing? Exponentially, we got this in the bag! It will be harsh, but you can’t overcome the esprit de corps.

Mack
Mack
10 months ago
Reply to  Capn Dad

You’re funny; that’s exactly right.

Now this is what’s not funny: try and find any GOPer who is willing to say that.

pigpen51
pigpen51
10 months ago

I of course understand your point completely, it is nothing new, really. I just think that there was a valid reason for some of the states to want some of the rights listed, especially the 10th amendment, which covers all of the rights that are not listed. They felt that unless they listed some of the most important rights, granted by God, which was a major factor in the founding of our nation, even if people don’t like to remember that part of our history, it would be to easy for an eventual tyrannical government to ignore them, and they… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  pigpen51

The drafters of the 1st Amendment of The Constitution to TALK and EXPRESS our openly protected views amongst each other in order to constantly form a better government. The 2nd Amendment is for when ALL talking and expression breaks down between government and WE, The People to protect us from government tyranny, such a which Biden openly intends on attempting on 20 January. SO, with THAT said, it appears that WE, THE PEOPLE need to grab our gear and stand by no later than 15 January and prepare for the 20th. “If they come for your guns, use them to… Read more »

hoss
hoss
10 months ago

With the latest decision from Roberts, and SCOTUS concerning the fraudulent election, the constitution has been rendered null, and void by the powers that be. Thus signaling we no longer have a republic, and certainly not a democracy, therefore I have to wonder if indeed we have a duty to obey.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  hoss

“WE, The People” don’t have a republic when “WE, The People” say so!

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  hoss

What trial? The penalty for treason is DEATH… No trial needed!

hoss
hoss
10 months ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

That my fellow patriot was my point!

WhiteRose
WhiteRose
10 months ago

Oh David david david, so poignant, so timely, so well stated. Thank you brother

Mack
Mack
10 months ago

David,

You are discussing the fundamental distinction between two World Views: Negative Rights and Positive Rights.

This conflict between Godly and Worldly is the civil war of our day.

Rights come from God; Privileges come from Man.

Thus, the RKBA is a Right, not a Privilege..

The Humanists are Hell-Bent on destroying this.

Secular Democrats are asking Biden/Harris to do exactly that.

Mack
Mack
10 months ago
Reply to  Mack

Here is the Blueprint from the Secular Democrats:

“Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House”

https://seculardems.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SecularDemocratsofAmerica_Blueprint_BidenHarrisTransition_11-30-20_FINAL.pdf

In particular, review Section II: Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Scientific Integrity

They would destroy the whole concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights.

Therefore, our rights can only be granted by Man.

And no more Dickey Amendment.

PAF145
PAF145
10 months ago

F.D.R the commie is always held as a hero by this countries’ traitors

Larry
Larry
10 months ago
Reply to  PAF145

All you have to do is look at photographs like these to understand that Roosevelt and Stalin were two peas from the same pod. You can just imagine Roosevelt saying, “Please be patient until I’m re-elected to my fifth term, when I can be even more flexible.”

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
10 months ago
Reply to  Larry

Good post.

Tionico
Tionico
10 months ago
Reply to  Larry

Everything gained from the time Hitler invaded Poland until VE Day was tossed into the cesspit at Yalta…. when the commies were “given” so many natioins and so muchterritory, coutrires were cobbled together out of disparate “people groups” assuirng no one group could ever attain self-government, and people groups were divided up between three or more political “nations”, again asuring none could ever come back together again as a people. God’s definition of a ‘nation” is a people of similar culture living within a contiguous territory over which THEY govern. I believe “balkanisation” is the three dollar term. The impositin… Read more »

gregs
gregs
10 months ago
Reply to  Larry

didn’t we hear the same from obummer to putin just a few years ago? peas again

Mack
Mack
10 months ago
Reply to  PAF145

They also consider Woodrow Wilson a hero.

He successfully pushed the idea that the Constitution as founded was antiquated in a fast-moving Progressive era.

Thus the rise of the Administrative State, a false idol.

Never mind Wilson was a White Supremacist, a Eugenicist, and an overall monster.

Ronnie
Ronnie
10 months ago

If Biden /Harris get to the White House – Their Ideology On ” GUN VIOLENCE ” Banning Types of Firearms –All Leads to the FACT – THEY ARE GOING TO – DISARM (try to ) THE AMERICAN CITIZENS – In Order to Complete The “DEAL” that Joe Made with –> CCP<— Yes — if you research this , you will see How Much they Have INVESTED into OUR COUNTRY – From BIG BUSENESSES – CORP’S- LAND – Food Industry ( they Could very Easily Starve Us ALL ! By shutting Down the Food Plants They OWN! Its Worse Than YOU… Read more »

gregs
gregs
10 months ago
Reply to  Ronnie

this is why people need to be self-sufficient as possible, raising animals and growing their own food, redundant layers of protection for their homes, having useful skills if something happens. if you are not already prepared you are behind. catch up, get ready, you never know what will happen. better to know and not have to use than not have.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  gregs

That will work until your own patch of utopia gets plowed under by government… People need to begin (If not already) banding together with their neighbors, get past the pissy-fit sessions and start focusing on WHO has WHAT skillsets that are best going to defend and protect YOUR neighborhood and your sovereignty from ALL enemies foreign and domestic. You can milk cows and plow the fields later or better yet, turn the domesticated women toward those duties while you all work on your defenses. There are only 3 things that are going to be necessary in the coming future. You… Read more »

Elisa Delaurenti
Elisa Delaurenti
10 months ago

The 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. According to the Founders, the right to keep and bear arms comes with us into this world courtesy of “Nature’s God”. They called the rights listed in the 10 Amendments “unalienable rights”, including the right to self defense and they specifically announced that “bearing arms” was included. So the Founders wrote into the Constitution, by ten Amendments, some but not all of our unalienable rights. And that means that the Constitution does not give us those rights – it affirms them. It acknowledges that the people… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago

“Once our States recall that they own the Federal government, the cat is out of the Federal bag and we the people will once again own and enjoy our beloved America.” Uh? It may take a little bit more convincing than just “recalling” just WHO is in charge and getting to ANY point of “own and enjoy our beloved America”? To reach your utopian viewpoint will sadly take a LOT of pain, suffering and yes, even bloodshed because the robber barons that seek to wield their final blow in destroying THIS United States will not just sit down and leave… Read more »

Elisa Delaurenti
Elisa Delaurenti
10 months ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

Your rambling has no message here as far as I’m concerned. My “viewpoint” isn’t “utopia”, it’s the backbone of this country. Get a clue.

Last edited 10 months ago by Dave in Fairfax
uncle dudley
uncle dudley
10 months ago

What an oxymoron to say human rights and the united nations in the same sentence, couldn’t be further from the truth.
The U.S. should not belong in the united nations or follow any of the decisions that come out of it let alone make U.S. law in that image.
Roosevelt was a rich upper crust do as I say not as I do person who wouldn’t even keep the vice president up to speed on what was going on in the government because he felt Truman was a bumpkin.
The only Roosevelt worth talking about was Teddy.

JayDubya
JayDubya
10 months ago

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The ridiculously optimistic quote of the Communist Manifesto and, in effect, the socialist democratic party.

nrringlee
nrringlee
10 months ago

David, you have just named the most fundamental contest in political theory, that of sourcing of rights. The natural law theorists, liberals vs the statists. Progressives fall in to the latter camp right along with collectivists of all brands, fascists and the legions of others who place their faith in the state and not the individual. We of the natural law theory camp are in the minority, always have been, and place our faith in powers that transcend the limitations of a feeble and blind temporal existence and place our faith in the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Whether… Read more »

JIAZ
JIAZ
10 months ago

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  JIAZ

Yeah, well, Wolfgang von Goethe obviously hasn’t a clue what Teufel Hunden stands for!

Charlie Foxtrot
Charlie Foxtrot
10 months ago
Reply to  USMC0351Grunt

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe died in 1832. The term “Teufelshunde” was used in WWI. So, you are correct to note that Goethe obviously hadn’t a clue what “Teufelshunde” stood for, because the term was only used 86 years after his death! Nevertheless, Goethe was right!

Nanashi
Nanashi
10 months ago

Notice how FDR openly destroyed, with unlawful government force, on those he considered undesirable (people he proudly admitted to hating in his Macon Telegraph essays) less than a year after publishing this crap. The Democrat party will throw you under the bus the second it is inconvenient.

USMC0351Grunt
USMC0351Grunt
10 months ago
Reply to  Nanashi

pac·i·fist
/ˈpasəfəst/

noun

  1. a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.
  2. “she was a committed pacifist all her life”
  3. Similar:
  4. peace-lover
  5. conscientious objector
  6. passive resister
  7. peacemaker
  8. peace-monger
  9. appeaser
  10. pacifier
  11. dove
  12. peacenik
  13. conchie
  14. satyagrahi
  15. Soy Boi
  16. Anti-Panties or Pantifa
  17. Liberals
  18. Dumbasses
  19. People that believe that THEIR lives matter more than others.
  20. Targets

adjective

  1. holding the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable.
Last edited 10 months ago by USMC0351Grunt