Second Bill of Rights - Learn about the real Obama agenda

Given Cass Sunstein's prominence in the Obama campaign, it is fair to ask the Senator: "do you support the second bill of rights?" which was part of FDR's "unfinished revolution" Go to Wikipedia.org. Learn about the real agenda of Obama.

_______________________________________________________

Saul Alinsky on "Change"...

From Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."[2]

[2] Saul Alinsky, The Latter Rain
http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/alinski.htm
_______________________________________________________

Statement from Communist Party USA (CPUSA):

"The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them."

http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

Contrary to the that marxist, who introduced Obama, at a recent rally, we do not need a communist manifesto second bill of rights. Especially the right to a job. A job is a trade. You trade your skill and labor for pay. If an employer is forced to pay someone who doesn’t produce, a fair amount, it is not a fair trade. This is true through all the tenants of marxism. When you force someone to surrender his labor or his money, to spread the wealth, there is no fair trade and no economic health. This is why communism fails the common man but serves the ruling class so well, between revolutions.

From the link:

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

While it doesn’t succeed in making Franklin Roosevelt into a constitutional innovator, this disheveled book does bring into focus FDR’s forgotten effort to address domestic “security,” as WWII neared its climax. Roosevelt’s inaugural address of January 11, 1944, asked Congress to adopt a “second Bill of Rights”: guarantees of work, adequate housing and income, medical care and education, among others—promises designed to extend the New Deal (and thwart the appeal of communism). The indefatigable Sunstein (Why Societies Need Dissent, etc.) sketches Roosevelt’s domestic policies and the logistics of the inaugural address (included in full in an appendix), then debates the never-adopted bill’s merits, historically as its ideas kicked around in the post WWII-era, and as it might be taken up today. He tends to be scanty on the bill’s potential budgetary toll and on the responsibility for one’s own welfare that FDR thought the bill’s beneficiaries ought to bear. Sunstein roams widely over legal history and precedent, but is focused and clear in showing how FDR sowed the seeds of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in whose 1948 drafting Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role) and energetic in discussing this proposal’s further possible legacy.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Would it actually kill you to post a little more detail?

Well, there was the link to Amazon where the following is found in the review by Stephen J. Jaros.

What hasn't become law, and what Sunstein really wants, is a welfare state that provides expanded housing, food, shelter and medical care for the poor, and not just at a bare minimum, but including enough spending money so that they can participate in the broader culture via purchase of consumer goods, too. Sunstein rejects the notion that people require only the "bare minimum for survival", saying that poverty is "relative", and in our affluent society people will not feel like "whole citizens" unless they have a lot of what they see others enjoying on television.

On pages 205-206, Sunstein addresses "my" point about the morality of "taking from the rich to give to the poor" by arguing that if one is to say that taking from the 'haves' to give to the 'have-nots' violates the rights of the 'haves', one would have to agree that "people have a right to their current holdings, and any dimunition amounts to a rights violation". Sunstein says that this position is implausible, because it is only the existence of laws and public institutions that make those holdings possible. He says "without public support, wealthy people could not possibly have what they own.... those who denounce government largesse as a violation of rights disregard the extent to which their own rights are a product of government".

That's it! That's his reply. In my opinion, it is totally inadequate, because if we take Sunstein's argument seriously, government can diminish any of our rights at any time for any reason, simply because it is government that protects them. If GW Bush wants to enact a law that allows the FBI to wire-tap anyone without a warrant at any time they please, or shut down newspapers that criticize the war in Iraq, one couldn't cry foul about one's rights being violated by an intrusive government, because by gosh it's only by the grace of government that we have any rights at all!

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRkZjNkNWZlMmUzZDEzZjMxY2Q4NTBjYjJmZDJjMzM=

Actually these ideas had their first appearance in the USA in FDR’s Four Freedoms speech. He had hoped to be able to create an economic Bill of Rights guaranteeing things like housing education and jobs after the war. The GI Bill was to be a first step in this effort.. It provided much more than college costs. You could decide against college nd get a low intrest FHA mortgage. All ex GIs were members of the 52/20 club. Receiving $20 a week for one calendar year as a support on their return. FDR had hoped to expand these to the society as a whole and very liberal Dems have always kept the concept of the 4 Freedom speech as their secret goal. It was t be paid for by a continuation of WWII taxation rates.

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.