Negative Liberties vs Positive Liberties and Obama

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
In a 2001 radio interview, Obama said the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it restrains Govt. and it doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth. He also called the Constitution a charter of negative liberties because it talks about what the Govt. can't do to you but not what the Govt. must do on your behalf.

Negative liberties is a progressive buzzword that explains why Progressives don't like the Constitution. Negative liberties means the individual has more freedom and liberty and the State is less powerful. This is because the State derives any power that it has from the individual.

Progressives want Positive liberties which take away freedom and liberty from the individual so they can conform to a collective ran by an all powerful State.

Notice how they turned the Constitution into something "negative" and their progressive, destructive policies are called "positive."

This goes directly to Obamacare and this debate on "gun control."

The 2nd Amendment is a threat to Progressives because it gives more power to the individual over the State. It says the right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is a negative liberty in the eyes of Progressives. This is because it takes away the States ability to infringe, control and eventually reduce these rights.

So gun owners should conform to the State's Gun Control in the eyes of progressives, liberals, socialist or whatever they want to be called today.

I think the Second Amendment needs to be defended because it's a PROFOUND expression of liberty and what this Country stands for. The individual has power over the State and the State derives it's power from the God Given Liberty of the individual and therefore the individual shouldn't conform to some "collective salvation" imposed by the State.

Gun Control is just a way to have more "control" over the individual and give more power to the State.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
You should link to the interview you are speaking of....



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The point was to limit the government and secure our personal liberties. What a weird-assed little man Obama is.


And speaking of 'buzzwords', so is the term "progressive".

edit on 18-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
As citizens being armed we are the last line of defense, to take that away leaves us wide open to attack from within. Are they to closed minded to even see this. It is the core of what keeps this country strong and makes others less likely to attack us. They know we will fight back.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by candlelight
 


Oh, there isn't a shred of close-mindedness to it. They know exactly what their trying to accomplish. The closed-minded folks are the ones believing their lies about gun control.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I saw a discussion clip on one of the Liberal MSM channels yesterday or the day before and it was a rather funny exchange. I think it was Alex Wagner but not positive.

They were discussing how "radical" the defenders of the second amendment were and how they just didn't understand what the big deal was...Here is the really funny thing. One of the members on the "panel" actually made a great point. She said "They are really no different than the abortion "pro-choice" groups that feel if they give up an inch in a woman's right to choose, they (the pro life) will take a mile"...Alex got a little p!ssy and made some smart @ss comments...but it was a funny moment because it was true and the liberal panel just had to suck it.

Personally I believe in Liberty and personal responsibility. I do not care what you do as long as your freedoms do not impose upon my freedoms. You can have abortions...I do not care. You can do drugs...I do not care. You can marry whoever you want...even your mailbox...and I do not care. Own whatever guns you want...again...I do not care. Personally, I just want people to live free...to me, that is all that matters.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


There's no doubt on either side that this fight is for ALL the marbles. Neither side can afford to lose, but it's not over until somebody does.

A few minutes ago, after I got out of bed and before I sat down at the computer, I was thinking about this very thing. Who the hell this guy thinks he is--even the lesser of all the founding fathers wouldn't bother to piss him out if he was on fire--and he thinks he knows better than all of them?

We can't afford to let anything slide....

edit on 1/18/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


Well said man. Couldn't have said it better myself. I remember when I was a child and my teacher at school said we are the land of the free. So naturally I asked if that is the case then why do we have laws saying we can't do certain things? Naturally the teacher responded by saying they infringe on other people's rights. I responded by asking about things that didn't effect other people. She said that it is because it is harmful to my health. So now I'm sitting there thinking to myself that this is the land of the free except what the government thinks you can't do. Mind you I was in second grade and while I didn't know what the word hypocritical meant I was definitely thinking along those lines.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 




This was just a manifesto of radical Progressivism. He was actually saying he knows the Govt. engaging in what he called redistributive change isn't Constitutional. So he says you don't go directly to the Courts because they're bound by the Constitution. You go through legislation. This is because you can pass unconstitutional legislation and it takes awhile to get to the Courts and by then the Courts will be reluctant to overturn the law like we saw with Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Here, he talks about the flaw in the Constitution.



Here, Obama shows you why this line of thinking is so dangerous and it's exactly what was talked about in the Documentary 2016 Obama's America. It's why Rev. Wright said GD America. Obama sees a fundamental flaw in America because Africans weren't seen as Americans at the time the Constitution was written. How does that represent a flaw in America today? He doesn't explain or go into this flaw because it's BS. It's Black Liberation Theology which has the goal to destroy whiteness represented by America. The problem here is the Constitution was written for a free people. Yes, we had to fight for our freedoms as blacks but the fundamental flaw wasn't in the Constitution or America, it was with racist. Free people should be black, white or any color. This is just a Rev. Wright, James Cone Theology of Black Liberation coming through Obama.

Here's a good video on Positive vs Negative Liberties. This will show why Progressives are so dangerous and a threat to freedom.



Here's a video of Progressive and Nobel Peace Prize Winner George Bernard Saw saying people should be gassed if they can't prove their worth to the State.



America is a big black eye to Progressives. It shows that when individuals have more power than the State the Country grows and prospers. Progressives are about the State being all powerful over a collective that lives the way they're told to by the State.

This is also why Obama talked about "Collective Salvation."

People need to realize that this is about the destruction of America. America has shown that negative liberties work. If you give more power to the individual over the State you will not have anarchy but order and that Country will prosper. Progressives, which can be both Democrat and Republican, thinks the people should be told what cars to drive, what to drink or eat, how to use heathcare or what guns they can own for their own good because the State knows what's best for the Collective.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED AS A PROFOUND EXPRESSION OF LIBERTY!!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The after effects of passing gun control laws: I just read on MSN that the New York Gun law messed up, they did not provide an exclusion for cops, The NYPD are just like the citizens now they are not allowed to carry no more the 7 rounds in their weapons. I bet that gets a slurry started when they are used to carrying 15 round clips. This could get interesting real fast, seeing as the law is set to go into effect in march. I wonder how the cops feel about their Gov. right now.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Obama's attack on negative liberty and individual freedom was on full display today. He said:

"Preserving our individual liberties," the President said, "ultimately requires collective action."

Again, this is the Progressive ideology that the collective is more important than individual liberty. Collective action, collective salvation is truly a threat to America.

An individual owes nothing to some collective. We're endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not the pursuit of happiness as long as you conform to some collective action.

America is a nation of free men and women who live by the dictates of their conscious not the collective. Notice how he puts collective action over individual liberty. So in order to preserve our liberty we will have to fall in line to some collective action initiated by an "all wise Govt."





top topics
 
7

log in

join