American History
Chapter 23
Chapter 23
World War II
| 25_great_ww2_myth_assignment.pdf |
| 25_great_ww2_myth_handout.pdf |
| 25xc_fascist_fraud_assignment.pdf |
| 25xc_fascist_fraud_politically_incorrect_fdr_handout.pdf |
| 25_pearl_harbor_video_assignment.pdf |
FDR's Executive Order 9066
Japanese Internment
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 9066, initiating a controversial World War II policy with lasting consequences for Japanese Americans. The document ordered the removal of resident enemy aliens from parts of the West vaguely identified as military areas.
|
|
FDR's Second Bill of Rights
State of the Union Message to Congress - January 11, 1944
| state_union.pdf |
Assignment:
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (State of the Union 1944) speech video - View and list all the new “rights” that FDR discusses!
ALSO Write a paragraph or so explaining how these “rights” are not really “rights” at all! What are NATURAL RIGHTS? How do these "rights" differ? Address the following: Do people have a “right” to have something provided to them by the government? Do people have a "right" to get something that is taken from someone else with the government serving as the middle man? Why would politicians / oligarchs want to provide things to some people at taxpayers expense? (What do the politicians get out of it?) Discuss this important shift in how Leftists portray the idea of "rights" and discuss why they are making this shift. If you do not understand, please ask me and your parents about this!
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (State of the Union 1944) speech video - View and list all the new “rights” that FDR discusses!
ALSO Write a paragraph or so explaining how these “rights” are not really “rights” at all! What are NATURAL RIGHTS? How do these "rights" differ? Address the following: Do people have a “right” to have something provided to them by the government? Do people have a "right" to get something that is taken from someone else with the government serving as the middle man? Why would politicians / oligarchs want to provide things to some people at taxpayers expense? (What do the politicians get out of it?) Discuss this important shift in how Leftists portray the idea of "rights" and discuss why they are making this shift. If you do not understand, please ask me and your parents about this!
Near the end of World War II, FDR proposed a "Second Bill of Rights" that would fundamentally transform the nature of rights. He believed that people should have rights to have certain things provided to them by the State (the government)! (A right to get something from the government is a "positive right." It means that others are coerced to provide something to you. This is political manipulation and enablement. Mostly, it is way to cull votes.)
This signaled a 180 turn from the Constitutional view of rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. According the founding principles, people have natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from the government encroaching upon these pre-existing, inherent rights. (A right to be protected from encroachment is a "negative right." It means that others have a duty to refrain from infringing on your life, liberty, or property. This idea was the foundation of our nation.)
FDR was proposing a new definition of rights that coerces some individuals to provide something to other individuals. Thus, FDR's approach involved a perspective toward rights that would deny some people their natural rights while providing nice things to others in exchange for votes.
This signaled a 180 turn from the Constitutional view of rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. According the founding principles, people have natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from the government encroaching upon these pre-existing, inherent rights. (A right to be protected from encroachment is a "negative right." It means that others have a duty to refrain from infringing on your life, liberty, or property. This idea was the foundation of our nation.)
FDR was proposing a new definition of rights that coerces some individuals to provide something to other individuals. Thus, FDR's approach involved a perspective toward rights that would deny some people their natural rights while providing nice things to others in exchange for votes.
March 2007 | Volume 36, Issue 3
Roosevelt’s or Reagan’s America? A Time for Choosing
John Marini Author, Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century
Roosevelt’s or Reagan’s America? A Time for Choosing
John Marini Author, Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century
| imprimis-roosevelt’s-or-reagan’s-america-a-time-for-choosing-mar-2007.pdf |
On January 11, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent the text of his Annual Message to Congress. Under normal conditions, he would have delivered the message in person that evening at the Capitol. But he was recovering from the flu, and his doctor advised him not to leave the White House. So he delivered it as a fireside chat to the American people. It has been called the greatest speech of the century by Cass Sunstein, a prominent liberal law professor at the University of Chicago. It is an important speech because it is probably the most far-reaching attempt by an American president to legitimize the administrative or welfare state, based on the idea that government must guarantee social and economic security for all.
Thirty-seven years later, in his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, President Ronald Reagan would deny that government could provide such a broad guarantee of security in a manner consistent with the protection of American liberty. Indeed, he would insist that bureaucratic government had become a danger to the survival of our freedom. In looking at the differences between the views of Roosevelt and Reagan, we can discern the distinction between a constitutional regime—in which the power of government is limited so as to enable the people to rule—and an administrative state, which presupposes the rule of a bureaucratic or intellectual elite.
Thirty-seven years later, in his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, President Ronald Reagan would deny that government could provide such a broad guarantee of security in a manner consistent with the protection of American liberty. Indeed, he would insist that bureaucratic government had become a danger to the survival of our freedom. In looking at the differences between the views of Roosevelt and Reagan, we can discern the distinction between a constitutional regime—in which the power of government is limited so as to enable the people to rule—and an administrative state, which presupposes the rule of a bureaucratic or intellectual elite.
