September 29, 1934 - Editorial - Human Rights and Lefts, by George Lorimer
The ten original amendments to the Constitution were adopted to define in clear and unmistakable language certain fundamental human rights that were guaranteed to every citizen of the young republic. The terms in which this Bill of Rights is written are so simple that their meaning and intention are unmistakable. Any high-school boy of average intelligence should be able to understand what is granted and what is forbidden in this brief document.
The Federal Council of Churches calls the New Deal divine, at least so far as its objectives are concerned, and perhaps it is, for it certainly has not got its feet on the ground.
The nomination of Upton Sinclair on his epic platform introduced a sour note into this swelling chorus of praise, though just why it is hard to say, as there is no real reason that we can see why its adherents should back away from him. He has simply made clear, for all to see, the issue before the country - radical socialism versus constitutional government. He has blazed the trail that the New Deal logically must tread, unless it makes a quick turn to the right. He has been bold and frank where the New Deal party - and we call it that advisedly, for there is no longer a Democratic party - has been pussyfooting, taking ten steps to the left, five to the right, and then ten to the left again. Our hats are off to Mr. Sinclair, a sincere radical socialist, who does not blink the implications of the New Deal. He has the courage of his convictions and he knows where the New Deal must head in unless it changes its spots.
When we consider the old Bill of Rights and the New Deal Bill of Rights, we must not forget that there is a third one, and that neither king nor dictator can long abrogate it: the right of every man to look up and not down; to work up and to fight against slipping back; to improve his position and his security, so long as he does it honestly and fairly; and to refuse to permit the imposition of masterson him that would curtail his rightful liberties.
A cynic might add that most of the New Dealers are members of the privileged classes themselves, many of them holding property that they show no signs of distributing, sharing the pleasure that the propertied derive from good salaries and salary increases, plus generous honorariums for writing; in short, they have many of the human failings and weaknesses that are common to those who do not believe in the divinity of the New Deal. (pg. 22)
Comments: The church leaders back then seem to have forgotten some simple lessons from both Jesus and Paul. As we have already seen, the 1932 Democratic campaign promises and the 1932 Democratic platform upon which Franklin Roosevelt and other Democrats ran turned out to be a great lie. This resulted in a few people getting the power they needed to impose a secret agenda upon the people. These people knowingly and willingly violated their oaths of office in order to impose this secret agenda. Thus, the New Deal had the lie as its foundation. This being the case, what kind of fruit can we expect the tree to produce? Good fruit or rotten fruit? Also, Paul warned that Satan himself was able to masquerade as an angel of light, thus making his disciples appear righteous. No doubt the enormous sums spent on relief made it appear that the New Dealers had the best interest of the people at heart. Who could have known that the nationalization of labor - servitude - was one of their primary secret objectives. This was yet to come. Upton Sinclair, by the way, was an active member of the Socialist Party and he ran for California governor in 1934. He lost, but his EPIC program (End Poverty in California) gained considerable support and he got 879,537 votes against the winner's 1,138,620.