Via Joe, I found this link to FDR’s “Four Freedoms” three of the four have since led to a mindset spewed by those who inhabit today’s “Progressive” culture.
They are:
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear
Of course, today’s liberals/progressives ditch the second one when Christianity is the religion in question. “The separation of Church and State” to them means that no more than one child at a time can say grace in the lunchroom without a full on counseling session afterward.
They also seem to believe that the Freedom of Speech includes the destruction of private and public property. “Violence” is only considered such when it is person to person. Lighting their home on fire is hunky-dory. The homeowner shoving the arsonist out of the way to get a hose to put the fire out is “violence”.
I take down the progressive thinking lines of the last two fictional “freedoms”, but Sean Flynn does so much better than I could and in far fewer words over at Joe’s place as his QotD.
All of that discussion led me to remember to post this NYT piece from yesterday about Justice Clarence Thomas at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute.
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
“Today there is much focus on our rights,†Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.â€
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,†he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?â€
He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.â€
Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.
And indeed they are luxuries. Things that one owns because one has earned them. They are not necessary in order to live, only to live more comfortably.
In order to earn these luxuries, one has to fulfill certain obligations (holding down employment) and take care of certain responsibilities (peaceful cohabitation in society).
However, Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog takes exception to Justice Thomas’ words
It’s not at all encouraging when one of the nine members of the Supreme Court complains publicly about a “proliferation of rights.” I hesitate to even wonder which protections Americans currently enjoy that Thomas would like to see taken away.
In fairness, I should note that I didn’t hear the full context. According to the NYT piece, Thomas went on to complain that “many” Americans have to come to believe “they’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.” He forgot to tell us to stay off his lawn.
All kidding aside, when Thomas said there’s been “a proliferation of rights,” was he talking about a perceived “right” to modern amenities and conveniences? If so, I’m afraid the high court justice doesn’t know what a “right” is. After all, when was the last time you heard someone above the age of 14 claim the “right” to have 10,000 BTUs and a 50-inch flatscreen, as opposed to say the “right” to vote or to a fair trial?
Well, I can easily remember the whining “survivors” of Hurricane Katrina complaining about some of these exact things. I can also remember that during the looting of New Orleans, and in other similar scenarios such as the Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles, those among the media were justifying the actions of the looters with words oddly resembling the language of these being “rights”.
As just one example, this permanently unemployed woman seems to believe she lives in a “slum” because her apartment (paid for with taxpayer monies) has a back door squeaks and a slow drip in the faucet. Notice the 60 inch television sitting atop her hardwood floors in her “slum” apartment.
Contrast that with things that Steve Benen believes are “rights”, such as “free” health care and “affordable” housing. Giving him the benefit of his delusions, just how far behind does any sane person believe that the demanding of “luxuries” will be if his “progressive” ideas become law?
I apologize for all the scare quotes throughout the last few paragraphs. I just wanted to climatize you before dropping this bomb:
The Department of Homeland Security has issued a report that will please people like Steve Benen and David Neiwert. It states that if you believe in the Constitution and admire other items of our nation’s founding, that you are probably a subversive threat to the security of the United States.
I don’t see too many rights or too few rights. What I do see are certain “old” rights being put on the back burner and other, “new” rights brought to the front.
They’re calling it “Progress”.
