Advertisements
Home

10 fascinating facts about young Franklin D. Roosevelt

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

One hundred and thirty four years ago today Franklin D. Roosevelt was born. 

Today is the birthday of the only person to run for, and win, the presidency four times: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Here’s a list of 10 facts about FDR— before he was elected President in 1932.

FDR_with_Groton_baseball_team

FDR, third from right with hat, with Groton baseball team (Wikimeidia Commons)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. For starters, young Franklin was an only child of very wealthy parents; he grew up on an estate in New York’s Hudson Valley.

2. And how was young Franklin related to President Theodore Roosevelt? It’s a bit complicated. The men were fifth cousins, so they had the same great-great-great-great-grandparents.

In this case, the distant relative was Nicholas Roosevelt, who lived from 1658 to 1742. Theodore was related to one of Nicholas’ sons, while Franklin was related to a second son.

3. Young Franklin was also related to his own wife. Eleanor Roosevelt was Theodore Roosevelt’s brother’s daughter. Since her father had passed away, Eleanor was walked down the aisle on her wedding day in 1905 by the president himself, Uncle Teddy.

4. Young Franklin also reportedly had a hard time adjusting to school. He was taught at home on the family estate until the age of 14, when Franklin was sent to prep school at Groton. He later went to Harvard. At the same time, he rekindled a relationship with Eleanor, and the two became engaged on November 22, 1903.

5. The college student Roosevelt was average academically, but very, very active socially. He was editor of the college newspaper, graduated in three years, and later passed his bar exam (after attending Columbia) without finishing his law degree.

6. After a brief law career, Franklin entered politics as a Democrat. His famous relative, Teddy, and many other Roosevelts were Republicans. But Franklin quickly climbed the Democratic ranks to become the assistant secretary of the Navy during World War I.

7. When Roosevelt ran for president in 1932, it wasn’t his first appearance on a presidential ticket. In 1920, he ran as vice president on the unsuccessful Democratic ticket that featured James Cox as president.

8. After his vice presidential defeat, Roosevelt contracted what was diagnosed as polio in 1921 while on vacation in Canada. He was paralyzed from the waist down ever since. With Eleanor’s support, Roosevelt didn’t give up his political career, and in 1928 he was elected the governor of New York.

9. In recent years, there are researchers who aren’t convinced that Roosevelt’s paralysis was caused by polio. A recent study appearing in the Journal of Medical Biography said the future president most likely suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

If Roosevelt’s doctors had known he had Guillain-Barre, the treatment in 1921 would have been the same.

“An FDR diagnosed with Guillain-Barre would have little to gain over one diagnosed with polio due to a deficit in possible treatments,” the article concluded.

10. And finally, the Journal article points out by misdiagnosing Roosevelt’s condition as polio, the eventual attention to the illness saved countless lives. As president, Roosevelt championed efforts to wipe out polio in programs like the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis and the March of Dimes. In the 1950s, the Salk vaccine ended the polio threat.

 

 

Advertisements

10 Deadly Mistakes Made By US Presidents

3 Comments

This is from ListVerse.

 

Throughout American history, presidents have done things both good and bad. They have made mistakes which have cost lives, and many times they have gotten away with it. This is a list of some of the things that presidents have done which caused casualties and fatalities.

10 Bill Clinton
Not Killing Bin Laden

9- clinton

Photo credit: USAF

 

In 2001, just hours before the attacks on the World Trade Center, former President Bill Clinton told an audience in Australia that he once nearly killed Osama bin Laden. The recording, which neither Clinton nor the audience would have known the significance of at the time, serves as one of the most sadly ironic footnotes in history.

In 1998, bin Laden was not considered the danger that he later became, but he was still on the government’s radar. He had been wanted for bombing the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya but had never committed significant attacks toward the United States. The government, though, suspected that the terrorist leader was capable of far more dangerous attacks. Finally, after years of attempting to find him, he was tracked to a small town in Afghanistan called Kandahar, where he was suspected of being held in the governor’s residence.

The military wanted to launch a strike against the town which would have killed bin Laden, but to do so would have put hundreds of civilian lives at risk. To avoid the deaths of the 300 or so townspeople, President Clinton called off the strike. It was also believed that the strike wouldn’t be successful because bin Laden left the room which the missile was aimed at. A second strike was proposed in May 1999, but a recent mishap involving a CIA bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade made the military wary of another possible misstep. Another chance would never come their way, and two years later, bin Laden committed the deadliest attack on US soil in American history. We may never know what difference it may have made had bin Laden been killed when we had the chance.

9 Richard Nixon

Pakistani Genocide Of Bangladesh

2- nixon

Photo credit: Jack E. Kightlinger

 

In 1971, tensions were flaring between the military government of Pakistan and the government of India. India and Pakistan have had issues for centuries, but due to increasing problems between the countries, there seemed to be war on the horizon. Pakistan at the time was a close economic and political ally of the United States, while India held a lesser position. Despite the Muslim dictatorship of the country, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger decided to provide economic and military support for Pakistan in the event of a war (which there was later that year).

However, the weapons which were secretly given to the Pakistani government were used for a much more sinister purpose—the genocide of the Bengali people. It’s estimated that nearly 200,000 people were killed by Pakistan, and according to documents by the State Department, neither Nixon nor Kissinger seemed to care. The slaughtering did nothing to stop the United States from continuing its support. The private US investments (many of the companies which were in Pakistan donated money to the Nixon campaign) seemed to be more important than the lives of the Bengali people.

At the time, the Indian government was receiving support from the Soviet Union, and the White House Tapes revealed the feelings of the president: Nixon once said that India needed “a mass famine.” When Kenneth Keating, a Republican serving as ambassador to India, confronted Nixon about the suffering of the Bengali people, Nixon called him “a traitor.” Finally, this all came to a head when India and Pakistan went to war. The cost of Nixon’s support for Pakistan was the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the region, for which he showed a callousness which displayed his lack of remorse for his lethal actions.

8 Herbert Hoover
The Election Of General Jorge Ubico

3- hoover

Photo credit: Harris & Ewing

 

In 1930, President Lazaro Chacon suffered a stroke and resigned, which set about a series of events through which General Jorge Ubico would be elected. After several leaders were removed by either the Guatemalan army or the United States government, Ubico finally proved himself to be a worthy leader in the eyes of the United States.

His most appealing quality to the United States was his undying devotion to the United Fruit Company. He offered them vast tracts of land in the country along with complete access to the labor force. He knew that by portraying himself as a servant to the United States, he would remain the sole leader of Guatemala. In fact, Ubico made such an impression on American ambassador Sheldon Whitehouse that Whitehouse said he was “the best friend the Untied States has in Latin America.”

After a rigged election in 1931 which was sanctioned by Herbert Hoover, Ubico started a campaign to create a highly efficient military dictatorship in Guatemala. He became an ostentatious man who wore extravagant military uniforms wherever he went in an effort to emulate his hero, Napoleon Bonaparte. He started to systematically kill off all opposition and democratic activity. His abuse of the labor force soon bubbled over, though, and after more than 20 years of a bloody, repressive regime, Ubico was removed from power in 1944.

7  Franklin D. Roosevelt

SS St. Louis

7- roosevelt

Photo via Wikimedia

 

Photo via Wikimedia

In 1939, The SS St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, Germany, to Havana, Cuba, with 937 Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi Germany. At the time, the United States had immigration quotas which allowed for only a certain number of immigrants to stay in the United States at any given time. The refugees went to Cuba ostensibly as tourists but planned to remain there until they could fill the quota numbers. However, when the Cuban government received word that they planned to stay there, they refused to allow the Jewish refugees to leave the ship. The non-Jewish passengers, though, were allowed to leave the ship.

Knowing what would happen if he took them back to Germany, the captain of the ship, Gustav Schroder, refused to allow the Jewish refugees to return across the Atlantic. The Jewish passengers were treated well onboard the ship: Captain Schroder tried to treat the passengers with respect, giving them kosher foods which were being rationed in Germany at the time, along with Jewish religious services. He even provided a cinema for the passengers. He next tried to dock the ship in Florida, but the Roosevelt administration would not allow the passengers on US soil due to immigration laws. When the ship neared the Florida coast, warning shots were fired.

Captain Schroder was so desperate to save the Jewish passengers that he tried to wreck the ship and force the American government to take them, but the Coast Guard, hearing of his plan, was ordered to follow the ship. Despite knowing full well the fates of the Jewish people aboard the ship, Roosevelt told them to leave.

Roosevelt, who was considering an unprecedented third run for president, did not want to engage in the plight of the passengers of the ship because public opinion leaned toward strict immigration laws. Eventually, the British government coordinated efforts to place the passengers into countries in Europe, but Nazi Germany eventually conquered many of the countries where the refugees were placed. It’s been estimated that a quarter of those aboard the SS St. Louis were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps.

6 Abraham Lincoln
Dakota War Of 1862

5- lincoln

Photo via Wikimedia

 

Abraham Lincoln is certainly one of the most beloved presidents of all time. His handling of the country during the Civil War counts as one of the greatest achievements of any American president before or since. However, one of the most overlooked aspects of his presidency was his treatment of the Sioux tribe. It is certainly one of the darkest spots on Lincoln’s record and taints his reputation as an American saint.

In 1851, the Sioux ceded massive tracts of their land in exchange for cash payments. By 1862, the federal government owed the Sioux nearly $1.4 million. Chief Little Crow attempted to go before the government, but the president refused to acknowledge him. A series of skirmishes started by the Sioux led to Lincoln giving permission for General John Pope to fight back. This led to the Dakota War of 1862, in which the Union government went on the warpath against the Sioux, who were only fighting for payment they’d been promised.

Of course, the American government crushed the Sioux uprising almost as soon as it began. On December 26, 1862, 300 Sioux were to be executed; while Lincoln pardoned most of them, 38 were still executed in the largest mass execution in American history. Over the years, the Dakota War disappeared from history. While the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves have been used to uplift Lincoln to a spot higher than many other presidents, his war with the Sioux over their rightful payment has not been forgotten.

5  Andrew Jackson

Treaty Of New Echota

6- jackson

Photo credit: Lmaotru

 

In 1835, five years after the Indian Removal Act had been signed by Andrew Jackson, a small group of Cherokee tribal members signed the Treaty of New Echota, which forced the Cherokee to leave their tribal lands in Tennessee and move west of the Mississippi River to the Oklahoma territory. The signing of the document itself was already illegal since the entire Cherokee tribal leadership had not agreed to the removal of their lands, but it soon came out that speculators had pushed for the signing of the treaty so they could purchase the newly available land for profit.

In 1838, the Cherokee tribe was forced to relocate in what has been called the Trail of Tears. The brutal march led to the deaths of 4,000 Cherokee who had been forced out of their ancestral land. Andrew Jackson showed no remorse for his actions, and the treaty, while technically illegal, was upheld by the entirety of the Cherokee nation out of honor.

Through abuses by officials which were sanctioned by Jackson, many more Native Americans were killed or cheated out of their land. Many of the other treaties signed during Jackson’s presidency only led to further wars with the Native Americans and more bloodshed. While the Treaty of New Echota was just one of many treaties used against the Native Americans, it led to the most pain for people who were forced out of their land by a president who was led by cruel convictions.

4 Franklin Pierce
Bleeding Kansas

8- bleeding kansas

Photo credit: Utopies

 

In 1854, with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the decision of whether or not slavery was to be legal in Kansas was left to the settlers of the state rather than to Congress. Franklin Pierce thought that this would be a good resolution to the slavery issue without involving the government. He believed that, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the whole headache of deciding a state’s slavery status was behind him. His assumption proved wrong.

As anti-slavery forces heard about the rise in pro-slavery settlers, they began to arrive en masse to sway the pro-slavery vote in Kansas. The abolitionists began to arm the settlers in an effort to keep them from being forced out of the state. This eventually erupted into bloody conflict as fighting broke out between the pro- and anti-slave forces. This was dubbed “Bleeding Kansas” by Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune.

In 1856, all hell broke loose with the Sacking of Laurence, in which Missourians invaded the city and destroyed homes, businesses, and other properties. The Missourians were pro-slavery, and the city of Laurence had been built by anti-slavery forces. The fighting continued throughout the state, all due to Franklin Pierce’s insistence that the federal government stay out of the slavery issue.

3 George W. Bush
Niger Uranium Forgeries

4- bush

Photo via Wikimedia

 

In 2001, the Italian military supposedly presented the CIA with evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from the government of Niger. This occurred in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, and the United Nations was gathering evidence of whether or not Hussein was attempting to create and store weapons of mass destruction. Yellowcake uranium is one of the main ingredients in the creation of nuclear weapons—which the Iraqi government had been doing, according to the United States—and the documents only seemed to prove this accusation.

However, for their entire existence, the documents were suspected of being forgeries. Despite the questions of their authenticity, the Bush administration used them in the case for war with Iraq with the infamous words, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Even before President Bush gave the speech in which he put forward the evidence that Iraq had been attempting to get uranium, French intelligence had said that the documents were not hard evidence. Despite this, the American coalitionwent to war with Iraq.

The controversy behind the documents and the justification for war would not die down. In 2002, American generals and CIA agents had attempted to verify the documents, but their efforts came to nothing. In 2004, an Italian source claimed that he had helped forge the documents, and both British and French forces found that the documents had indeed been forged. In 2003, word broke that an investigation by the Atomic Energy Agency had also found the documents to be forged. None of these findings affected the war. Many lives were lost, but there were no prosecutions despite the key foundation of the War in Iraq being entirely fake.

2 Barack Obama
ATF Gun-Walking

1- obama

Photo credit: Pete Souza

 

While gun-walking has been in use by the ATF since 2006 with some success, it wasn’t until 2009 that President Obama authorized then–Attorney General Eric Holder to use the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to tag several deadly assault rifles so they could be sold by gun dealers near the border to “straw buyers” who would then sell the weapons to the Mexican cartels. This was all done under the code name “Operation Gunrunner.” Not only was this all highly illegal, but when the guns did manage to get into cartel hands, they were used to execute Mexican citizens and ceremoniously dumped so there could be no trace. While many of the straw buyers were caught and prosecuted, none of the cartel targets were actually caught, leaving them in the clear.

After the failure of the operation, the order was for all documents to be buried. According to a Department of Justice report, of the 2,000 guns being tracked, only 710 of them had been recovered by 2012. This means that over 1,000 assault rifles may still be in the hands of the Mexican cartels. The operation would have remained secret if it weren’t for the murder of United States border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was killed by a Mexican cartel in 2010. After his death, investigations discovered that the tagged guns were related to 150 murders in Mexico.

In 2011, members of Congress began to investigate the operation and started to wonder: Who gave the order for it? Former Attorney General Holder denied giving the order. He refused to give any related documents to Congress, and he was placed in contempt of court. When President Obama was asked about his part in the operation, he invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency. The investigation, while never formally closed, eventually came to nothing, and there has been no further word about who was at fault.

1 James Madison
War Of 1812

10- war of 1812

Photo credit: Thomas Birch

 

During the Napoleonic Wars, many British war vessels patrolled the Atlantic Ocean for French trading vessels. This often led to altercations with American ships that did business with both Britain and France. The frequent provocative acts by the British eventually angered President Madison too much, and he declared war in 1812. This proved to be a great mistake.

The British government was angered by their defeat during the War for Independence and were out for blood. They unleashed the most vicious assault that the United States has ever known. After crushing the American naval fleet, they launched the first and only invasion of the United States. They overwhelmed the American armies, and it seemed that they were going to retake the lands they had lost. They marched to Washington, DC, where they proceeded to sack and burn the city. Madison began to realize that by declaring war, he may have sowed the seeds of destruction for America.

By 1814, however, after much fighting in which the United States managed to push back the British invasion, Madison decided to press for a truce with the British government. Both governments came to realize that prolonged war would be unprofitable on both sides of the Atlantic and agreed to peace. They signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, which put an end to the War of 1812, although fighting would continue for some time. By the end of the violence, an estimated 20,000 Americans had lost their lives.

The Nazi Plot to Blow Up Hoover Dam

Leave a comment

This is from Mental Floss.

How many such plots will never be made public?

hoover_primary

IMAGE CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES

In 1935, Hoover Dam (or Boulder Dam) was a brand-spanking-new feat of engineering,dedicated in a ceremony attended by Franklin D. Roosevelt in September of that year. Less than four years later, government officials feared it would all be demolished by Nazis.

A number of suspicious activities were reported beginning in October 1939, including a German man who took large numbers of photographs around the dam and was upset when his female companion accidentally strayed into some of the shots.

By November, the State Department had word from the U.S. embassy in Mexico that two German agents planned to bomb the dam’s intake towers and cut power to the high-voltage line, with the goal of crippling the aviation manufacturing industry in Los Angeles, which did indeed rely heavily on the hydroelectric power provided by the dam. The agents planned to rent a boat under the guise of a fishing excursion, and would then use the boat to plant the bombs at the intake towers. One of the German agents had reportedly already made more than a dozen planning trips to the dam.

Officials took the threat quite seriously, immediately halting all recreational activity on Lake Mead. The restrictions applied to employees as well, which the War Department believed to be the biggest threat. None of them were allowed to enter the dam except when absolutely necessary from an operations standpoint.

Even with the precautionary measures, strange activity continued in the area. Shots were fired at a National Park Service patrol boat, and an unauthorized car was spotted driving away from a no-trespassing zone near the switchyard.

Though the discovery of the Nazi plan wasn’t made public, people noticed the sudden restrictions. Rumors began to circulate; one popular theory pertained to a massive net stretched across the lake, just above the dam, to catch any explosive devices that might be thrown at the structure. To calm the public, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner John Page issued a press release in January 1940 saying that “Boulder Dam is perfectly safe. There has been no ‘plot’ unearthed. Reports that the Bureau of Reclamation is fearful that someone will dynamite the dam are ridiculous.”

Meanwhile, the Bureau was actually trying to figure out more advanced ways to protect the dam than access restriction and extra patrol. One “color consultant” recommended painting the dam and spillways with “bold, simple masses of colors” to help conceal the dam from planes overhead. Another proposal included building a three-quarter size “dummy” dam downstream from the real one. The decoy would be made of wire, then painted various colors and textures to simulate the concrete and rocks of the cliffs.

Despite all of the behind-the-scenes plotting and planning to protect Hoover Dam, the government continued to keep the plot from going public—and, in fact, none of this was discovered until 60 years later. In 2001, a historian for the Bureau of Reclamation happened upon government documents while doing research in the National Archives. The previously classified information revealed what citizens had been told was a completely unfounded fear: The Nazis had planned to blow up Hoover Dam.

 

 

 

10 RARE AND UNSEEN PICS AFTER PEARL HARBOR

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Peace.

While clicking other links I found these pictures.

 

Exactly 72 years ago today, Japan launched more than 350 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes against the U.S. naval base in Hawaii–a “date which will live in infamy,” in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt. In fact, that Sunday morning is so seared into America‘s memory that the tumult of the weeks and months afterward is often overlooked. Here, on the 72nd anniversary of Pearl Harbor, LIFE.com presents rare and unpublished photos from Hawaii and the mainland, chronicling a nation’s answer to an unprecedented act of war.

 

Unpublished, a rally at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Dec. 1941. 

The Brooklyn Navy Yard was founded in 1801. It had contributed ships to every American conflict, including the War of 1812, the Civil War, and World War I. It would prove absolutely essential to the war effort during World War II.

Source: George Strock/TIME & LIFE Pictures

Unpublished, young defenders beside a mounted machine gun, Hawaii, Dec. 1941.

“Close observers of Japan,” LIFE noted in mid-1941, “have said for years that if that country ever found itself in a hopeless corner it was capable of committing national hara-kiri by flinging itself at the throat of its mightiest enemy … [On December 7] it took the desperate plunge and told its enemies in effect: “If this be hara-kiri, make the most of it.”

Source: William C. Shrout/TIME & LIFE Pictures

Unpublished, Vice Admiral Joseph “Bull” Reeves, Waikiki Beach, Dec. 1941. 

While the U.S. was stunned by the attack on Pearl Harbor, the nation’s political and military leaders had long been conscious of tensions with Japan — which was obviously gearing up for war long before December 1941. An example of the measures the U.S. took in expectation of some sort of conflict in the Pacific: Joseph “Bull” Reeves, retired since 1936, was recalled to active duty in 1940. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, he was already 69.

Source: Bob Landry/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

Unpublished, Pearl Harbor, Dec. 1941.

At the time of the attack, there were roughly 50,000 troops based at Pearl Harbor. Afterwards the number of soldiers spiked, as there were several hundred thousand of them stationed in Hawaii by 1945. (The number dropped to less than 70,000 by 1946.) “Out of the Pacific skies last week,” LIFE magazine wrote in its December 15, 1941 issue, “World War II came with startling suddenness to America … With reckless daring Japan aimed this blow at the citadel of American power in the Pacific.”

Source: William C. Shrout/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

Unpublished, training with gas masks in Hawaii, early 1942.

“Ambassador Nomura and Envoy Kurusu,” LIFE reported in mid-December 1941, “had come with the answer to Hull’s note [of protest to the Japanese delegation in D.C.]. Hull read it through and then, for the first time in many long, patient years, the soft-spoken Secretary lost his temper. Into the teeth of the two Japanese, who for once did not grin, he flung these words: “In all my 50 years of public service I have never seen a document that was more crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions — on a scale so huge that I never imagined until today that any government on this planet was capable of uttering them.”

Source: William C. Shrout/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

Unpublished, troops shore up defenses in Hawaii in the weeks after Pearl Harbor. 

World War II lasted four more years — until Germany surrendered in May of 1945 and Japan surrendered in September of that year, in the wake of America’s destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The attack on Pearl Harbor, meanwhile — rather than Japan’s greatest victory — turned out to be an act of belligerent folly that, in many ways, guaranteed Japan’s eventual defeat.

Source: William C. Shrout/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

No Job Too Small — Dec. 1942

A Naval officer — dwarfed by the vessel in his view — gazes at a cruiser’s propeller at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. During the course of World War II, more than 5,000 Allied ships were brought to Brooklyn for repairs.

Source: George Strock/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

Unpublished, a poster at the Brooklyn Navy Yard calls for vigilance, Dec. 1941.

Within days of the attack, while the eyes of America were understandably focused on Pearl Harbor and the Pacific, a naval yard in New York City was already ramping up for what looked to be a long, long war.

Source: George Strock/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

A closer look at the USS Arizona‘s wreckage, 1942.

Source: Bob Landry/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 


“U.S. aircraft rose at once to repel the Japanese attack,” LIFE wrote in December 1941, overstating the efficacy of the American response to the assault. In fact, more than 2,400 Americans (including scores of civilians) were killed in the attack; hundreds of U.S. aircraft were destroyed. In contrast, fewer than 70 Japanese were killed. The American response to the massive, sudden attack was unquestionably stalwart; but there’s also little question that, in terms of sheer losses, America endured a hellish blow.

Source: William C. Shrout/TIME & LIFE Pictures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It Is War 12/07/1941

1 Comment

Seventy two years ago today America became involved in WWll.

 

A 1934 Political Cartoon that Presages Obama

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is Barack Obama and his ilk.

Obama has taken LBJ’s and FDR’s programs  to heights

not even they could dream of taking them.

This cartoon sums up what Obama is doing.

 

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” (Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)1934_PoliticalCartoon

Everything we are seeing today has been done before. A Chicago Tribune political cartoon from 1934 explains it all. The title is “Planned Economy or Planned Destruction.”

It shows Trotsky in the lower left corner, Harold Ickes, who served as Secretary of the Interior under FDR starting in 1933, Rexford Tugwell (the man riding the horse) was a key adviser. Henry Wallace, the guy with the shovel, was Secretary of Agriculture and later vice-president during FDR’s third term. Donald Richberg was the second head of the National Recovery Administration.

 

Notice the sign on the left side of the cart:

“Young Pinkies from Columbia and Harvard.” Barack of Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. For those of you not in the know, a “pinky” is a budding communist: pink but not quite red.

Also note the “Plan of Action”:

“SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! Under the guise of recovery — bust the government – blame the capitalists for the failure — junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship.”

“It’s Déjà vu all over again.” (Yogi Berra)

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12905/1934-political-cartoon-presages-obama/#ixzz2i6qSahWS
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12905/1934-political-cartoon-presages-obama/#1JQ58u73giqW11oy.99

 

SUNSTEIN: OBAMA WANTS ‘SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS’

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

Obama wants to use the idea dreamed up by Emperor Franklin the First.

The idea is straight out of The Communist Manifesto.

The article says it is modeled on the south African model.

They both came from the Communist Manifesto.

 

Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.

Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.

Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights–not a list of constitutional amendments, but policy goals–was as follows:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Sunstein points out Roosevelt was not a socialist–and yet many of the “rights” he proposed were inspired by socialist policies. The Soviet constitution of 1936, too, included the right to work, among other guarantees.

In addition, Sunstein argues that Obama has made progress on least one of these rights: the right to health care, through the highly controversial Obamacare–whose costs will begin to be felt this year in earnest.

The analogy is not perfect: one “right” on which Roosevelt would not have agreed with Obama, for example, is the “right” of public sector workers to bargain collectively and to strike, which Roosevelt opposed.

Regardless, both conservatives and liberals may agree: Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.

 

 

A Proposed Bill to Register the Sale and Purchase of ‘Precious Metals’

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

It is time to stop buying gold and sliver.

It is time to start buying brass and lead.

Sounds like we will soon need it.

 

The Constitution mandates the paying of all debts in silver and gold. Our nation’s founders established a firm economic foundation when it made only silver and gold legal tender for our government.

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” (Art I, sec. 10)

Individuals can trade and sell whatever they want in whatever form they want. Comic books are made out of paper and toys are made out of plastic and pot metal. To tens of thousands of collectors, these are valued.

Governments try to impute value to base metals and paper and call it “money.” If our government didn’t force people to trade in Federal Reserve Notes, the “value” of these printed slips of cotton and linen would sink without a trace.

Knowing something of the history of how bad economic policies destroy economies, millions of people around the world are investing in gold and silver as a hedge against economic tyranny and inflation.

Governments don’t like it when their “subjects” kick against the pricks. That’s why we’re seeing blowback from our government on guns and ammo. If most politicians had their way, only the government they controlled would be authorized to own firearms.

Some states are trying to pass legislation that would require people who buy silver and gold to register with the state. Consider this proposed bill from the state of Illinois, the home state of Barack Obama and the most anti-gun state in the union with its own murder capital, Chicago:

Creates the Precious Metal Purchasing Act. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall obtain a proof of ownership, create a record of the sale, and verify the identity of the seller. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall not pay for the precious metal in cash and shall record the method of payment. Requires the purchaser to keep a record of the sale for one year or, if the purchase amount is over $500, for 5 years. Provides that a person who violates the Act is guilty of a petty offense and subject to a fine not exceeding $500. Provides that the Attorney General may inspect records, investigate an alleged violation, and take action to collect civil penalties.

Why does the state of Illinois or any other state need to know who buys and sells precious metals? Control. Possible confiscation sometime in the future.

Don’t think this couldn’t happen.

How many of you know about “Executive Order 6102”? I suspect that few people under the age of 80 do. Executive Order 6102 was signed on April 5, 1933 by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt “‘forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States.’ The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.’”

The Illinois precious metals bill was introduced by State Senator Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican. and friend, Barack Obama. “In June 2007, Dillard appeared in an Iowa TV ad touting his former state senate colleague and friend, Barack Obama.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8888/a-proposed-bill-to-register-the-sale-and-purchase-of-precious-metals/#ixzz2HQeuqwbu

 

Gun Control, Thought Control and People Control

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

This article pegs the way the left views the world.

The left wants to rule our day-to-day existence.

The left wants to have total thought and speech control.

The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli.

You wouldn’t blame a dog for overeating; you blame the owners for overfeeding him. Nor do you blame a dog for biting a neighbor. You might punish him, but the punishment is training, not a recognition of authentic responsibility on the part of the canine. And the way that you think of a dog, is the way that the left thinks of you. When you misbehave, the left looks around for your owner.

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been “liberated” to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it’s because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it’s because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.

Individual behavior is a symptom of a social problem. Identify the social problem and you fix the behavior. The individual is nothing, the crowd is everything. Control the mass and you control the individual.

That is how the left approached this election. Instead of appealing to individual interests, they went after identity groups. They targeted low information voters and used behavioral science to find ways to manipulate people. The right treated voters like human beings. The left treated them like lab monkeys. And the lab monkey approach is triumphantly toted by progressives as proof that the left is more intelligent than the right. And what better proof of intelligence can there be than treating half the country like buttons of unthinking responses that you can push to get them to do what you want.

Would you let a lab monkey own a gun? Hell no. Would you let it choose what to eat? Only as an experiment. Would you let it vote for laws in a referendum? Not unless it’s trained to push the right button. Would you let it drive a car? Nope. Maybe a bicycle. And if it has to travel a long way, you’ll encourage it to use mass transit. Does a monkey have freedom of speech? Only until it annoys you.

You’ll take away most of the monkey’s bananas, which you’re too lazy to go and find for yourself because you have more important things to do than fetch bananas. You train monkeys to fetch bananas for you. That is how the enlightened elites of the left see the workers whose taxes they harvest; as monkeys that they taught in their schools and created jobs for with their stimulus plans for. And the least that the monkeys could do is pay their taxes, because the monkeys didn’t build that. You did.

You do plan to take care of monkey’s medical expenses, at least until they get too high, and spay and neuter it with free birth control. You will train it to be the smartest and most well-behaved monkey it can be. And when it gets too sick, you plan to have it mercifully put down so it doesn’t hang around spreading diseases and depressing you with its misery.

And what’s wrong with any of that? Human beings are just evolved monkeys. It’s not as if you’re being cruel to the monkey. You’re engaged in what you might charitably think of as a symbiotic relationship with the monkey. If the monkey were smart, it might think of you as a parasite. But you have a whole lot of rounds of ammunition stockpiled in case of a Planet of the Apes scenario.

If you assume that there is as much of a substantive difference between the elite and the common man as there is between a man and a monkey, there is nothing particularly inappropriate about such behavior. We herd animals. Liberals herd people. The human being is the livestock of the liberal animal farm.

The Nazis believed that they were the master race because they were genetically superior. Liberals believe that they are the master race on account of their superior empathy and intelligence. There’s an obvious paradox in believing that you have the right to enslave and kill people because you care more, but that didn’t stop millions of people from joining in with revolutions that led to a century of bloodshed in the name of movements that cared more.

The defining American code is freedom. The defining liberal code is compassion. Conservatives have attempted to counter that by defining freedom as compassionate, as George W. Bush did. Liberals counter by attempting to define compassion as liberating, the way that FDR did by classing freedoms with entitlements in his Four Freedoms.

On one side stands the individual with his rights and responsibilities. On the other side is the remorseless state machinery of supreme compassion. And there is no bridging this gap.

Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a revolutionary pity that uses empathy only as fuel for outrage. It is the sort of compassion practiced by people who like to be angry and who like to pretend that their anger makes them better people. It is the sort of compassion that eats like poison into the bones of a man or a society, even while swelling their egos with their own wonderfulness.

Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading as outrage which in turn is dressed up as a deep love for others and empathy for all living creatures. Peel away the mask of compassion and all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power. And the only way to truly justify the kind of total power summoned by such lusts is by reducing the people you would rule over to the status of non-persons.

The clash that will define the future of America is this collision between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is accountability.

To understand the left’s position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely reactive capacity. Then use that data to come up with a response to anything from kids getting fat to a football player shooting his wife to terrorists firing rockets at Israel. The only possible answer to reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.

If you want to fake being a member of the left on any topic and in any setting, master this simple phrase. “But we have to look at the root causes to see who is really responsible.” Congratulations, you can now get by anywhere from Caracas to Brussels to Berkeley.

The root cause is a perpetual search for an accountability vested in systems rather than people. That search always ends up with systems and ideologies, rather than mere people, because it justifies the destruction of those systems and ideologies. And destroying systems and ideologies allows them to be replaced by their progressive replacements.

The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character. The right asks, “Why did you kill?” The left asks, “Who let him have a gun?”, “Who didn’t provide him with a job” and “Who neglected his self-esteem?”

Freedom goes hand in hand with personal moral organization of the individual by the individual. Organized compassion however requires the moral organization of the society as a whole. A shooting is not a failure of the character of one man alone, or even his family and social circle, it is the total failure of our entire society and perhaps even the world, for not leveraging a sufficient level of moral organization that would have made such a crime impossible. No man is an island. Every man is a traffic jam.

Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.

Choice is what makes us moral creatures and collective compassion leaves us less than human. The collective society of mass movements and mass decisions leaves us little better than lab monkeys trying to compose Shakespeare without understanding language, meaning or ideas, or anything more than the rote feel of our fingers hitting the keyboard.

This is the society that the left is creating, a place filled with as many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve you.

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters.

First Person: Sober Imagery of Pearl Harbor Remains with WWII Navy Veteran

Leave a comment

This is from Yahoo News.

We have one man’s story of  how his life changed.

The author in his US Navy uniform

Yahoo News asked Americans deeply impacted by the Dec. 7, 1941,Pearl Harbor attacks to share how their families were affected in the decades since. Here’s one story.

FIRST PERSON | I was with a group of high school friends at a Sunday afternoon movie in 1941 when the screen suddenly went dark. The manager then came on stage and announced that Pearl Harbor had been attacked by the Japanese. Ironically, the movie was “Sergeant York,” about a World War I hero.

We never saw the rest of the movie, and we all gathered outside. Most of us had never heard of Pearl Harbor, and as the implications of the attack became clear, we were fired with the growing anger that was just beginning to sweep across the country. I was 16, one of the youngest in our senior class of mostly 17- and 18-year-olds. The conversation soon moved on to how soon we could get into the fight. Some of the older boys talked about quitting school to enlist.

Our senior class trip to Washington, D.C., was scheduled for just a week later. Fortunately, it wasn’t cancelled and we stayed at the Mayflower Hotel for three nights. Our tour of the city’s historic buildings had some grim sights. Some of them, if they’d happen today would look almost comical. We saw many soldiers in World War I helmets with loaded rifles and machine guns guarding roofs and entrances. There was confusion everywhere in the Capitol, and it was obvious the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had been a total surprise to a woefully unprepared nation.

Along with thousands of other young men, my 19-year-old brother had rushed down to an Army recruiting office on Monday, Dec. 8, morning to enlist. That was the day President Roosevelt made a speech in Congress and declared war on Japan for the “dastardly” attack on Pearl Harbor.

I had to wait an anxious year to get into it, and finally was able to join the Navy. After boot camp in 1943, I was assigned as a crewman on a troop transport. While carrying Marines to the Pacific battles, we sailed through Pearl Harbor. It was two years after the attack, and much of the damage had been repaired.

However, as we passed by the site, we could still see the grim image of the destroyed battleship USS Arizona just below the surface. There were bubbles of escaping oil still breaking the surface. It was as if the ghosts of the 1,177 sailors below were urging us to remember Pearl Harbor.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: