Posts

Rights guaranteed – responsibilities not required

How come liberals talk about rights that should be guaranteed, but not responsibilities required? I would think that if you are going to be guaranteed rights by the state, the state would set detailed responsibilities from those benefiting from those rights.

Author note: While I’m away from the computer, I’m republishing my top 20 posts from 2008 each afternoon. -Steve

This mornings post by Scott Johnson at Power Line – Obama’s Constitution – should be an eye opener. During the past few months the alternative media has proven Obama to be a socialist. There is no denying it. Now we have another official Obama adviser trying to explain away Obama’s comments on Chicago public radio in 2001.

Update: New phrase coined – Second Bill of Rights. 

Cass Sunstein, a law professor from the University of Chicago, made the attempt to link Obama’s statements in 2001(transcript) to conservative principals.

“What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t man [sic] in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said. “What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals.”

The right to education? There is no right to education. As a matter of fact, there are only three rights that are inalienable, granted by our Creator, and those are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are inalienable, they can not be taken away by anyone or any state. Any other perceived rights defined by the left are provided by the state, and therefore can be taken away.

That does not stop Sunstein, or other socialists like Obama, from trying to define new rights. They use emotion to define these rights. Of course you have a right to food, water, housing, medical care, a job. This is exactly why it’s easy to be a liberal, all you need is good intentions.

Being a conservative is hard.

For those who think we’re being too hard on the Obama advisers, let’s take a look at Sunstein’s book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, which you can pick upat Amazon for 83 cents.

He argues for FDR’s second bill of rights. I’m familiar with FDR’s New Deal which started the entitlement culture here in the United States, but I was not familiar with FDR’s second bill of rights, of which he spoke at his State of the Union address in 1944. (My emphasis added.)

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights tolife and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

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.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

What does Obama think about FDR’s second bill of rights and Sunstein’s book that promotes the concept? If there really should be a right to a decent home, food, clothing and recreation, who pays for that?

During this time, Americans were not just asked to sacrifice, it was demanded of them. And maybe that was the right thing to do. But in 1944 FDR asked Congress to change the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to life, liberty and state sponsored happiness, forever changing American culture to … (drum roll please) … an entitlement society.

You need to be concerned. You need to ask Obama, Biden and other liberals about these concepts. Where do they stand? Where do you stand?

Ben Smith over at Politico has more.

Update: A phrase has just been coined – Second Bill of Rights. Malkin has more and directs us to Mark Steyn over at The Corner.

NRA legislation update – national carry and firearm licensing

On Sound Off Connecticut today, current legislation in the U.S. House concerning firearm licensing was mentioned and we have an update for you. The NRA is tracking legislation and provides us with the proposal details.

If you are a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the services is e-mail notification concerning proposed legislation in your state and at the federal level.

First, positive legislation that you should support. H.R. 197 is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. In part, it states that if you go through the required background check and fulfill state requirements to have a pistol permit, that state issued permit should be accepted without question in other states. I guess you can compare this to a drivers license that is accepted in other states.

Many argue that nobody should be required to even have a permit to carry a self defense weapon after the normal background check. If they “grant” permission to you, you accept the fact that rights are given to you by the government. I understand that position since rights described in The Constitution are unalienable, not granted by the government.

There would also be issues around Vermont residents who are not required to have a permit to carry a pistol; anyone can buy a pistol and carry after the standard background check.

I wonder why there are no “wild west shootouts” in Vermont? Anyway, here’s the text of H.R. 197.

H. R. 197 (111th Congress, 1st Session)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.

On to H.R. 45 – Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act. I’ve made the full PDF of the legislation available here, but here is the recap from the NRA.

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things:  a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. …

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner’s address in America.  Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a “qualifying firearm” — defined as “any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…” without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a “qualifying firearm” to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require “qualifying firearm” owners to report all transfers to the attorney general’s database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence.

The NRA also tracks legislation at the state level. Our readers and listeners are from all over the country, but here is the information on proposed legislation for the State of Connecticut. Here is the link to find information concerning legislation in your state and how you can help.

Anti-gun legislation, Senate Bill 554, introduced by State Senator Leonard Fasano (R-34), would ban the private sale of long guns and subject them to the same licensing requirements as handguns.  SB554 has been referred to Public Safety and Security Committee.

Please contact members of the Public Safety and Security Committee today and respectfully urge them to vote “NO” on Senate Bill 554.  Click here for a list of the members of the Public Safety Committee.

On a positive note, several pieces of NRA-supported legislation were introduced.  Senate Bill 729, sponsored by State Senator Dan Debicella (R-21), Senate Bill 727, sponsored by State Senator Sam Caligiuri (R-16), and House Bill 6165, sponsored by State Representative Penny Bacchiochi (R-52), all clarify and improve upon current law as it relates to the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.  These bills have all been referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

Two very important pro-hunting bills were also introduced and referred to the Joint Committee on Environment.  House Bill 5209, sponsored by State Representative Craig Miner (R-66), would maintain the amount of state land where hunting is permitted should land be taken away.  House Bill 5281, sponsored by State Representative Bryan Hurlburt (D-53), would allow deer hunters to take two additional deer provided the meat is donated to a nonprofit entity serving the needy.

Please contact the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary today in support of Senate Bill 729, Senate Bill 727, and House Bill 6165.  Click here for a list of the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

Please contact the members of the Joint Committee on Environment today in support of House Bill 5209 and House Bill 5281.  Click here for a list of the members of the Joint Committee on Environment.

Rights guaranteed – responsibilities not required

How come liberals talk about rights that should be guaranteed, but not responsibilities required? I would think that if you are going to be guaranteed rights by the state, the state would set detailed responsibilities from those benefiting from those rights.

This mornings post by Scott Johnson at Power Line – Obama’s Constitution – should be an eye opener. During the past few months the alternative media has proven Obama to be a socialist. There is no denying it. Now we have another official Obama adviser trying to explain away Obama’s comments on Chicago public radio in 2001.

Update: New phrase coined – Second Bill of Rights. (see more below)

Read more