Archive for the ‘Franklin Roosevelt’ Category

THE GENEALOGY OF OBAMACARE

Saturday, January 25th, 2014

 

The Genealogy of Obamacare

Share

RECOGNIZING THE WRONG PEOPLE – SYRIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST

Thursday, September 5th, 2013

 

“Recognizing the Wrong People”

by Clare M. Lopez    Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues

It is high time we stopped empowering those who wish us ill: not just to recognize a blood-soaked regime, but to keep on recognizing it.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt [FDR], reversing the policy of four presidents and six of their Secretaries of State not to recognize the Soviet government, in 1933 extended “normal diplomatic relations” to the Soviet Union, the totalitarian slaughterhouse of Josef Stalin. As meticulously researched by Diana West in her new book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” the reasoning behind Roosevelt’s decision was never made clear; what was clear, however, since the 1917-1919 Bolshevik seizure of the Russian government by force, was the Soviet reign of blood and terror. According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, by the late 1930s, Stalin’s regime was shooting tens of thousands of people per month. Yet, for reasons that remain murky, FDR was influenced, inspired, or somehow persuaded to normalize U.S. relations with Stalin, in exchange for a page of Soviet concessions, not worth the paper they were written on, which pledged that the USSR “would not attempt to subvert or overthrow the U.S. system.”

What West documents is the subsequent process of infiltration, influence, and “occupation” by an army of communist agents and fellow travelers; here, however, the focus is on what that original 1933 decision has meant for future generations, most especially our own, when confronted with decisions about whether or not to recognize enemies who make no secret of their enmity and intention to destroy us.

Whatever FDR’s thinking, West points out that this decision — not just to recognize the blood-soaked communist regime, but to keep on recognizing it — fundamentally transformed what Robert Conquest, the great chronicler of Stalin’s purges, called “the conscience of the civilized world.” And perhaps not just our conscience: as West writes, “[b]ecause the Communist regime was so openly and ideologically dedicated to our destruction, the act of recognition defied reason and the demands of self-preservation.” In other words, quite aside from the abdication of objective morality represented by FDR’s decision, there was a surrender of “reality-based judgment,” the implications of which on the ability of U.S. national leadership to make sound decisions involving the fundamental defense of the Republic resonate to the current day.

Fast forward to late September 2010, when Mohammed Badi, the Egyptian Supreme Guide of the openly, avowedly jihadist Muslim Brotherhood [MB], literally declared war on the United States (and Israel and unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers). Badi spoke plainly of “jihad,” “force,” and “a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” There was no ambiguity in his message: it anticipated the “demise” of the U.S. in the face of Muslim “resistance.” Even as the Muslim Brotherhood, from the earliest years after its 1928 founding, has always been forthright about its Islamic supremacism and objectives of global conquest, a caliphate, and universal shariah [Islamic Law], Badi’s pronouncement was as clear and menacing as Usama bin Laden’s 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” or his 1998 declaration of “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” – and garnered about as much understanding from the U.S. and Western political leadership of the time – which is to say, very little. (more…)

Share

PHOTOS – DIANA WEST, AUTHOR OF ‘AMERICAN BETRAYAL’ SPEAKS AT ICON LECTURE SERIES

Thursday, June 20th, 2013

JUNE 18, 2013

Diana West, author of the newly released book, ‘American Betrayal, The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character’ was the guest speaker at the first ICON (Issues Confronting Our Nation) Lecture Series in Durham, North Carolina on June 18, 2013.  Diana gave chilling details from her new book that reveals not just the familiar struggle between communism and the Free World, but the hidden war between  those wishing to conceal the truth and those trying to expose the increasingly official web of lies.  American Betrayal shatters the approved histories of the time period from the build up to WW II through the end of the Cold War.  Diana argues that deception and self-deception by many of our government officials during that time sent us down the long road to ‘political correctness’ and other cultural ills that have left us unable to ask the hard questions:  Does our silence on the crimes of Communism explain our silence on the totalitarianism of Islam?  Is Uncle Sam once again betraying America?

In American Betrayal, Diana West shakes the historical record to bring down a new understanding of our past, our present, and how we have become a nation unable to know truth from lies.

PHOTOS FROM THE EVENT

Diana West, author of the newly released ‘American Betrayal’ speaking at the ICON Lecture Series in Durham, North Carolina

lunch with Diana West – from the left, Katharine Carek, Dana Postiglioni, Janie Wagstaff, Dr. Laura Gutman, Margaret Gresham, Lee Green, seated in front – Diana West, Lauren Panchal and Nancy Clark

from the left, Janie Wagstaff and Diana West arriving for lecture

book signing

from the left – Carol Johnson, Linda Zoffer, Linda Arnold and Dana Postiglioni

from the left, Ruth Bishop, Sandy Bazley and Karen Kolias

from the left, Katharine Carek and Cathy Wright

from the left, Dennis Dickerson, Dana Postiglioni and Harry Dawley

Zan Bunn and Louis Stannard

from the left, Terry Wiegers, Linda and Matt Arnold

from the left, Joanne Beckman, Nancy Clark and Laura Cox

from the left, Mary Lou Drake and Val Williams

from the left, Carol King and Dr. Laura Gutman

from the left, Joan Ritz, Beverly Inchalik, Jean O’Connor and Betsy Ninninger

Don Hunter, Lee Green and Dr. Brenda Hunter

from the left, Margaret Gresham, Lee Green, Dana Postiglioni and Lauren Panchal

 

 

 

 

 

Share

VIDEO – DIANA WEST, AUTHOR OF NEWLY RELEASED BOOK ‘AMERICAN BETRAYAL’ – SOVIET AGENTS SUBVERTED U.S. IN 1930’S

Tuesday, June 4th, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

  VIDEO – DIANA WEST DISCUSSES HER NEW BOOK, ‘AMERICAN BETRAYAL’  WHICH EXPOSES HOW  SOVIET AGENTS SUBVERTED THE U.S. IN THE 1930’S.  DIANA WEST IS INTERVIEWED BY GINNI THOMAS, WIFE OF U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS. 

 

 

DIANA WEST WILL BE THE GUEST SPEAKER AT THE FIRST ICON LECTURE SERIES ON TUESDAY, JUNE 18 AT 7 P.M. AT THE LEVIN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, 1937 WEST CORNWALLIS ROAD, DURHAM.  TO RESERVE YOUR TICKET FOR THIS LECTURE, PLEASE GO TO WWW.ICONLECTURESERIES.COM    

 

 


 

 

 

 

Inline image 1
Levin Jewish Community Center
1937 West  Cornwallis Road
Durham, North Carolina

 

 

Share

THOMAS SOWELL – GUNS AND PENSIONS

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

 

Guns and Pensions

By Thomas Sowell – February 19, 2013

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:American warplanes were not updated to match the latest warplanes of Nazi Germany or imperial Japan. After World War II broke out, American soldiers stationed in the Philippines were fighting for their lives using rifles left over from the Spanish-American war, decades earlier. The hand grenades they threw at the Japanese invaders were so old that they often failed to explode. At the battle of Midway, of 82 Americans who flew into combat in obsolete torpedo planes, only 12 returned alive. In Europe, our best tanks were never as good as the Germans’ best tanks, which destroyed several times as many American tanks as the Germans lost in tank battles.

A nation’s choice between spending on military defense and spending on civilian goods has often been posed as “guns versus butter.” But understanding the choices of many nations’ political leaders might be helped by examining the contrast between their runaway spending on pensions while skimping on military defense.

Huge pensions for retired government workers can be found from small municipalities to national governments on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a reason. For elected officials, pensions are virtually the ideal thing to spend money on, politically speaking. Many kinds of spending of the taxpayers’ money win votes from the recipients. But raising taxes to pay for this spending loses votes from the taxpayers. Pensions offer a way out of this dilemma for politicians.

Creating pensions that offer generous retirement benefits wins votes in the present by promising spending in the future. Promises cost nothing in the short run — and elections are held in the short run, long before the pensions are due. (more…)

Share

OLIVER STONE’S TWISTED HISTORY OF THE U.S. IS ENTERING THE MAINSTREAM

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

 

The Wall Street Journal

  • January 11, 2013

Just When You Thought Soviet

Propaganda Was Dead

By RONALD RADOSH

For many years, the American left has combed the past for history lessons that will aid their effort to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, if not a full-fledged socialist utopia. The most successful leftist intellectual in that enterprise was the late Howard Zinn, whose books—such as “A People’s History of the United States,” first published in 1980—have sold millions of copies and are still used by high schools and colleges nationwide. Zinn believed that by emphasizing the struggles of working people, women and people of color against their supposed oppressors, his work could mobilize a new generation to carry on the fight of yesterday’s radical heroes.

That search for a usable past has been taken up in a new form by filmmaker Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick in both their Showtime television series, “Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States,” and in the accompanying book of the same name. Mr. Kuznick, who wrote the volume and whose outlook frames the series, is frank about his mission.

He once wrote in a book of essays that he sees his role as a professor to be that of “creating a bridge between leftist and more moderate students,” so that he can “try to radicalize some of the more moderate and liberal students” who accept our political system instead of working for real radical change. Those who support “liberal capitalism,” he wrote, are “blind to the lessons of history.”

In discussing the TV series, Mr. Stone says in the first episode that he wants to counter the view that “we were the good guys” by telling the story of America “in a way that it has never been told before.” The series’ treatment of the Vietnam War, for instance, is intended, according to Mr. Kuznick, to show that the U.S. had moved so far “to the dark side” that “we were the wrong side.” (more…)

Share

KRAUTHAMMER – THE RIGHT-TO-WORK DILEMMA

Monday, December 17th, 2012

 

The right-to-work dilemma

By , Published: December 13

For all the fury and fistfights outside the Lansing Capitol, what happened in Michigan this week was a simple accommodation to reality. The most famously unionized state, birthplace of the United Auto Workers, royalty of the American working class, became right-to-work.

It’s shocking, except that it was inevitable. Indiana went that way earlier this year. The entire Rust Belt will eventually follow because the heyday of the sovereign private-sector union is gone. Globalization has made splendid isolation impossible.

The nostalgics look back to the immediate postwar years when the UAW was all-powerful, the auto companies were highly profitable and the world was flooded with American cars. In that Golden Age, the UAW won wages, benefits and protections that were the envy of the world.

Today’s angry protesters demand a return to that norm. Except that it was not a norm but a historical anomaly. America, alone among the great industrial powers, emerged unscathed from World War II. Japan was a cinder, Germany rubble and the allies — beginning with Britain and France — an exhausted shell of their former imperial selves.

For a generation, America had the run of the world. Then the others recovered. Soon global competition — from Volkswagen to Samsung — began to overtake American industry that was saddled with protected, inflated, relatively uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules.

There’s a reason Detroit went bankrupt while the southern auto transplants did not. This is not to exonerate incompetent overpaid management that contributed to the fall. But clearly the wage, benefit and work-rule gap between the unionized North and the right-to-work South was a major factor.

President Obama railed against the Michigan legislation, calling right-to-work “giving you the right to work for less money.” Well, there is a principle at stake here: A free country should allow its workers to choose whether to join a union. Moreover, it is more than slightly ironic that Democrats, the fiercely pro-choice party, reserve free choice for aborting a fetus while denying it for such matters as choosing your child’s school or joining a union. (more…)

Share

THE SOUL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MACHINE

Sunday, June 24th, 2012
The Wall Street Journal

  • June 23, 2012

Its dominant interest groups have done to Obama what they did to Carter.

By JAY COSTMr. Cost is a staff writer for the Weekly Standard and the author of “Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic” (Broadside Books, 2012).

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Roosevelt’s successors continued to pay off existing clients while bringing new ones into the mix. By the 1970s the party added the environmentalist left, the feminist movement, government unions, trial lawyers and others to its coalition. By the 1990s, big business, long considered to be a client of the GOP, also purchased a major stake. All of these groups joined the Democratic Party because of special privileges they received from it, and in exchange they provided cash for campaign ads, volunteers for get-out-the-vote efforts, and support to members of Congress through lobbying networks.

For a long while, Democrats managed to balance the needs of their clients with the public interest, much like FDR had done during the New Deal. Eventually there were just too many special interests to do both. The party was like a juggler who added one too many balls to the routine, only to see them all come crashing down.

In the wake of Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election, Democrats are blaming their loss on Republican-friendly super PACs and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. The thinking goes that moneyed interests far outspent the Democrats, bought the election, and undermined democracy.

This analysis is misguided. Liberal Democrats who fancy themselves reformers should take a long, hard look at their own party before pointing fingers at the Supreme Court. When they do, they might see it has fallen far from its lofty claims to be the “party of the people.”

The first progressive Democrats hated the role of narrow interests in their own party. At the turn of the last century, early liberal leaders such as William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson were embarrassed by Tammany Hall, the amoral political machine that ran New York City. Both tried unsuccessfully to break the back of the “Tiger,” as Tammany was known. (more…)

Share

THE REAL STORY ABOUT HERBERT HOOVER

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Misunderestimating Herbert Hoover

June 11, 2012

The Scrapbook will go to great lengths to avoid being pedantic, but sometimes we are so astonished by the ignorance—the sheer bricks-for-brains philistinism—of certain journalistic celebrities that we feel constrained to set the historical record straight.

We are thinking, among other instances, of the Washington Post’s resident boy genius Ezra Klein, who once explained that many Americans misunderstand the U.S. Constitution since “the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.” (That is, before 1912!) And of a similarly eye-popping observation we ran across last week by
Margaret Carlson, who these days writes for Bloomberg.com.

Carlson customarily tends to substitute a certain snarkiness of tone for actual knowledge—which, we suppose, entertains her readers. But in a tortured attempt to make the case that Mitt Romney, as a onetime businessman, is disqualified by experience for the presidency, she said the following:

The only successful candidate to run as a businessman—it was all he had—was Herbert Hoover. Look where that got us.

Now, The Scrapbook does not wish to enter into an extended discussion of the qualities and defects of the Hoover administration, or the virtues of Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corp. versus New Deal pump-priming, and so on. And of course, as a loyal Democrat, Carlson is entitled to express her opinion—“Look where that got us”—about Herbert Hoover’s place in history. But to suggest that Hoover ran “as a businessman” for the White House in 1928, and that his (spectacularly successful) commercial background “was all he had,” is not only unfair but profoundly and self-evidently wrong.

Herbert Hoover was, indeed, a businessman: He parlayed his training as a mining engineer (and member of Stanford’s first graduating class) into a storied career as a geologist, miner, and investor in the American West, in Australia, in China—where he was a hero of the resistance to the Boxer Rebellion—and in Europe before the outbreak of World War I.

As a wealthy American resident in London at the time, Hoover organized the (private, voluntary) Commission for Relief in Belgium, which successfully tackled the monumental problem of feeding and caring for the millions of refugees displaced by fighting across the continent; and after American entry into the war in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover to the newly created U.S. Food Administration.

Hoover continued his work after the Armistice, founding the American Relief Commission to assist in the recovery and reconstruction of war-ravaged nations from Poland to Armenia, and as a consequence became (with the possible exception of Wilson) the most famous and beloved American in Europe.

So famous and beloved, indeed, that many of his friends and admirers (including his future rival Franklin D. Roosevelt) urged “the Great
Humanitarian” to run for president in 1920. Instead, Hoover opted to serve as secretary of commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, where he influenced economic policy, reorganized domestic agencies, deployed the resources of the federal government to encourage growing industries (such as radio), and became the federal government’s point man for disaster relief, most notably in the devastating Mississippi River floods of 1927.

Which, of course, is only a partial description of Hoover’s private and public career before his election to the White House. So did he “run as a businessman” for president? Well, only in the sense that Jimmy Carter ran as a peanut farmer, and Barack Obama as a community organizer.

Share

FDR’S D-DAY PRAYER

Friday, June 8th, 2012
The Wall Street Journal

  • June 5, 2012, 7:00 p.m. ET

FDR’s D-Day Prayer

Roosevelt’s address stands as a testament to how much our nation has changed since that evening in the late spring of 1944.

By WARREN KOZAK

EXCERPT FROM  THIS ARTICLE:  Imagine a president, any president, sitting in the Oval Office ending an address to the nation, in a slow, deliberate cadence, like this:

“Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.”

Yet that is how Franklin Roosevelt signed off that D-Day night.

Franklin Roosevelt is not remembered for his religious dogma. Yet 68 years ago on the night of June 6, as tens of thousands of American and Allied forces were flung into a caldron of fire in Western Europe, the president and commander in chief sought to calm an anxious nation as he spoke to his people. It was a presidential address that stands out as a testament to how much our nation has changed since that evening in the late spring of 1944.

Beginning around midnight the night before, elements of the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions had landed behind enemy lines in France. They were followed seven hours later by massive landings on beaches in Normandy code-named Sword, Juneau, Gold, Omaha and Utah.

Americans began hearing special reports in the middle of the night and they continued to follow events closely throughout the day. At lunch counters and in offices and factories, people clustered around their radios. So it was both natural and necessary that the president say something.

Yet instead of giving a news account—something Americans had already heard from network radio news and read in their evening papers—Franklin Roosevelt chose a different course. He led the nation in prayer.

“Almighty God,” Roosevelt began, “Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.”

kozak

Associated PressPresident Franklin Roosevelt in 1944. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories