Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris to be his running mate: Here are all the reasons why she’s wrong for America


It is no longer big news that Senator Kamala Harris has been selected to run as Sleepy/Quid Pro Joe Biden’s Running Mate. (It’s doubtful mind-addled Joe actually picked Harris himself.) Harris has a host problematic issues connected to her legal/political career that should garner some admiration from Crooked Hillary. Zero of those problems will be displayed by the Dem propaganda machine Mainstream Media.

A couple of days ago J.D. Heyes touched on really only a small scale of those problems on News Target. As you the small scale, you should keep in mind Joe Biden is 77 and showing huge signs of diminished mental acuity. Even Dems don’t believe Biden will complete a term if elected. It is my opinion if yet another crooked Dem like Joe is elected, he will resign soon after – God Help America – a potential election. Meaning Leftist ignore-the-Constitution Kamala Harris would be President.

 

Dear God in Heaven VOTE TRUMP!!!!

 

JRH 8/13/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

*************************

Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris to be his running mate: Here are all the reasons why she’s wrong for America

 

Kamala Harris

 

By JD Heyes

08/11/2020

News Target

 

Well, the drama is over: Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did what his handlers told him to do; he’s picked a ‘woman of color’ to be his running mate.

 

Remember when ‘persons of color’ were telling Americans the color of someone’s skin shouldn’t matter?

 

In any event, those days are long gone, and the Democrat Party has become the party of victimhood and identity politics, the latter of which is a joke when you consider Democrats were the party of the breakaway Confederacy, the party of slavery, the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and opposition to the civil rights movement.

 

Now we come to the pick: Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who once called Biden the biggest racist on the planet, which is about the only truthful thing she has said during the 2020 campaign cycle.

 

While she’ll be feted and celebrated by the phony ‘woke’ Left as ‘the first black female vice presidential pick’ (allowing Democrats to check that box), the fact is, she’ll have a lot to answer for in the coming days and weeks.

 

(Related: California scrubs controversial Kamala Harris-era arrest reports.)

 

Here are some of the many reasons why she’ll give Democrats fits:

 

— As the Marxist Democrat Left gets more ‘woke,’ the party’s ‘law enforcers’ have become more, shall we say, ‘tolerant’ of law-breaking. As a California district attorney and eventually attorney general, she pushed for a new state law that sought to punish parents if their kids were chronically truant. How will that work out with a party that lets dangerous criminals out of jail because they might catch COVID-19, or lets rioters and looters walk free?

— She supports the invasion of privacy through the expansion of police attainment of DNA samples. She wants cops to collect them from all crime scenes so that the samples can be added to global databases. Her home state allows them to be collected and preserved from anyone who’s ever arrested, even if they’re never charged.

— Harris supports civil asset forfeiture — the government’s taking of private property before any criminals proceedings are ever initiated. What a ‘constitutionalist.’

— She loves illegal immigrants and supports giving them extra rights that are not normally afforded to non-citizens, such as granting them law licenses and license to drive. Oh, and of course, as ‘president in waiting’ (Biden’s not mentally fit to govern) she’ll push for and expand giving taxpayer freebies to illegals. Hide and watch.

— Harris’ reputation as a ‘tough on crime’ prosecutor, again, will not bode well with her party’s new ‘look the other way’ and ‘defund the cops’ law enforcement policies. That said, her reputation isn’t even deserved.

— She said in 2017 she’d rather see the government shut down than vote for a spending bill that didn’t address the highly unconstitutional DACA program. She would later refuse to go along with a fix that President Trump proposed, proving that she, and other Democrats, really are hypocrites when they claim they ‘support’ the illegal aliens caught up in the unconstitutional Obama-era program.

— Then, of course, there was that time a California Superior Court judge found that she, as San Francisco district attorney, violated a defendant’s rights by hiding damaging info regarding a police drug-lab technician.

— In 2004, Harris angered her now-U.S. Senate colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, when, as a district attorney, she would not seek the death penalty for David Hill, who had shot and killed a San Fran police officer with an AK-47 (he wounded another cop in the leg). Feinstein drew an ovation from a mostly-cop crowd when she said of Harris’ decision, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.”

And we’d be remiss if we didn’t remind readers that Harris, 30 at the time, dated the married San Fran Mayor Willie Brown, in his 60s, using that as a means of sleeping her way up the California political ladder.

 

Yeah, Harris was a great pick for Biden.

 

Sources include:

 

NationalReview.com

SFGate.com

RollCall.com

NaturalNews.com

__________________________

NewsTarget.com © 2020 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. NewsTarget.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind.

 

NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

 

Socialism – A History of Violence


Brigitte Gabriel takes 3:56 to explain the reason Socialism (the precursor to Communism) is a wicked ideology. The Dems at various levels wholly support Socialism. Uncle Bernie is the worst by supporting Communist regimes in Cuba and the former Soviet Union (Today’s Russia – still loaded with closet Communists – SEE HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE). And varying degrees of Socialism supported by the rest of the Dem pack of Liberty stealing wolves – including crooked Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden.

 

Full disclosure: the brief video is a recruiting tool for support for ACT for America. If support is in your budget I encourage you to do so. If not in budget, there are other ways to support other than cash. Sharing is one.

 

JRH 3/4/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

*************************

Socialism – A History of Violence

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Email sent 3/3/20 4:48 AM

ACT for America

 

Despite the long history of violence that comes with socialism, it has emerged as the preferred philosophy of the far left. The threat of socialism is a national security matter as gangs, instability, and lawlessness are known to accompany the pervasive ideology.

 

The time has come for us to get fired up and act to stop this violent ideology before it’s too late. Watch and share the video with everyone you know!

 

VIDEO: Brigitte Gabriel: Socialism is On A Mission To DESTROY America!

 

[Posted by ACT for America

83.7K subscribers – Feb 26, 2020

 

Join me in this fight against Socialism HERE: http://bit.ly/2Tl7EVQ]

++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

______________________

© 2019 ACT Content LLC. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. ACT for America Education, Inc. is a registered 501 c (3) organization.


Address: 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington D.C., 20004 USA

 

ACT Mission

 

ACT for America Education’s mission is to educate, engage, train, and mobilize citizens to ensure the safety and security of Americans against all threats foreign and domestic while preserving civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution.

 

ACT About Page

 

Intro to PragerU’s ‘Who Is Karl Marx?’


Intro by John R. Houk

© September 27, 2018

I have read that Millennials have become sympathetic to the concept of Socialism. Here are three definitions from Merriam-Webster:

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

 

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

Vladimir Lenin – the first dictator of the Soviet Union once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.”

 

Communism is often attributed to the theories promoted by Karl Marx. Those theories are absolutely contradictory to what has made America great. And yet Millennials find favor with the Socialist ideology that would turn America into a totalitarian nation.

 

PragerU gives a short explanation of what Karl Marx got rolling.

 

JRH 9/27/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Who Is Karl Marx?

 

By Paul Kengor

Sep 24, 2018

PragerU

 

When writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx thought he was providing a road to utopia, but everywhere his ideas were tried, they resulted in catastrophe and mass murder. In this video, Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, illuminates the life of the mild-mannered 19th Century German whose ideas led to the rise of some of the most brutal dictators in world history.

 

Click here to take a brief survey about this video.

 

VIDEO: Who Is Karl Marx?

 

_____________________

Intro to PragerU’s ‘Who Is Karl Marx?’

Intro by John R. Houk

© September 27, 2018

____________________

Who Is Karl Marx?

 

PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!

 

PRAGER UNIVERSITY IS NOT AN ACCREDITED ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND DOES NOT OFFER CERTIFICATIONS OR DIPLOMAS. BUT IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE FREE TO LEARN.

 

© 2018 Prager University

 

PragerU What We Do Page

 

Our Vision

A more rational America 

 

Our Mission

To influence culture through digital content that advances Americanism

 

About Us

 

We take the best ideas from the best minds and distill them down to five focused minutes. We then add graphics and animation to create the most persuasive, entertaining, and educational case possible for the values that have made America and the West the source of so much liberty and wealth. These values are Judeo-Christian at their core and include the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Intro to ‘From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?’


Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

By Mark Alexander

Posted August 16, 2018

Mark Alexander’s Patriot Post column Wednesday (8/15/18) has a title that demands to be read – From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?

 

Alexander’s zeros in more on the uncivil discourse than the potential outcome of socio-political incivility. The growing separating supporters of the American Left and American Conservatives will end in Civil War if a consensus mending does not occur.

 

The theme The Patriot Post is the growing violence occurring in the name of Socialism. The Dems embracing this Socialism have attempted to anesthetize the term by calling the ideology Democratic Socialism. The reality though about Democratic Socialism is it is the politics of Communism.

 

Mark Alexander summed up Communism by this excerpted description:

 

Russia’s “Red October” Revolution was inspired by the Communist Manifesto, published by Karl Marx in 1848. Marx wrote, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. … Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily destroyed.” (Bold text by Blog Editor)

 

 

As history would have it, Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin sided with Marx: “The goal of socialism,” he said, “is communism.” But instead of a utopian socialist “workers’ paradise,” a succession of brutal communist tyrants unleashed seven decades of global terror — at an incalculable human toll.

 

 

In 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev told Eisenhower’s Cabinet Secretary Ezra Taft Benson: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; We’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

 

 

Fact is, National Socialism and Democratic Socialism are much the same as Marxist Socialism — behind the façades. (Bold text by Blog Editor)

 

Contemporary leftists would like you to believe that there’s a clear distinction, but Adolf Hitler was certainly a socialist. In his autobiography Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote of his Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the “NAZI Party”), “The party should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master.” On the socialist state versus individual Liberty, he wrote, “The unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.”

 

READ ENTIRETY (Communism — A Centennial Celebration of Tyranny and Terror; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 10/25/17)

 

Socialism, Democratic Socialism & Communism represent everything America IS NOT! Conservative know this. The younger generation of mostly Millennials have been brainwashed by years of alternative history AND a lack of true history, especially in the failure to teach American history.

 

ERGO, a chasm widens Americans which will erupt into Civil War – AGAIN.

 

JRH 8/16/18

Please Support NCCR

*******************

From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?

Historic socialist assaults on Liberty were not as organized and targeted, nor did they have the tacit approval of a major political party.

 

By Mark Alexander 

Aug. 15, 2018

The Patriot Post

 

“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.” —John Witherspoon (1776)

 

Make America Civil Again

 

The Democrat Party’s fastest growing identity-politics constituency has, for the last decade, been coalescing around a theme that is both animating and destructive: Hate. The current chorus of contemptible rhetoric comes from leftist Demo antagonists, their Leftmedia propagandists whose ad revenues depend on conflict and dissent, and the hate-profiteering groups now forming “thought patrols.”

 

Make no mistake: This new constituency is growing more desperate and disenfranchised by the day, and the inherent risks of such hate-filled rhetoric pose an ominous threat to civility and to the future of American Liberty.

 

Since 1960, Democrats have built their party along lines of division, and now, they rely almost completely on the politics of disunity to sustain their constituencies and maintain their power. Their political playbook has only one chapter: “Divide and Conquer.” The two major lines of this Demo-division are economic class disparity, created in large measure by their own failed economic policies, and the socio-cultural victimization cards of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender.

 

But as their political identity constituencies began to soften, they have resorted to a new identity attribute to unify all the others: Hate.

 

Over the last decade, fomenting hate has become the centerpiece of Democrat strategy. But as the party has become more radicalized and its rhetoric more unhinged, the center-left is being eviscerated. The net result is that fewer Democrats are proud to be Americans and, as an astounding new Gallup poll notes, Democrats now prefer socialism to capitalism.

 

Barack Obama, who was himself a disciple of hate, spawned in 2011 a movement of “useful idiots” under the “Occupy Wall Street” banner. That movement was joined by the so-called “Black Lives Matter” constituency in 2014 and the emerging “antifa movement” of self-proclaimed anti-fascist fascists in 2016.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that Obama’s BLM-fueled hatred inspired the murder of police officers in New York and in Dallas, antifa is now emerging as the most broadly violent of leftist groups. Its riotous confrontations in August 2017, targeting the normally quiet town of Charlottesville, Virginia, ostensibly in support of the removal of historic monuments, prompted liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to make this clear to his Democrat colleagues: “Antifa is a radical, anti-America, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard-left sensorial organization.”

 

Idiotfest – Democratic Socialists of America

 

These groups have two common denominators. They embrace and spread hate and they subscribe to the delusion of democratic socialism. They are well organized by statist handlers, including Direct Action Network and Democratic Socialists of America — a.k.a., fascists. They are well financed by their billionaire backers, the archenemies of Liberty — George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg.

 

In 2016, socialist/fascists consolidated around the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, whose non-Democratic presidential primary bid was surreptitiously stolen by Obama’s heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. But in reality, Clinton’s Democrats and Sanders’s socialists constitute a distinction without much difference. Indeed, the Democrat Party’s protagonists, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and of course Sanders, have become a unified chorus of populist socialism deniers and hate provocateurs.

 

The stunning defeat of Clinton in 2016 by Donald Trump, who has mastered the art of antagonizing his opponents, greatly amplified the leftist tenor of hatred. The most strident of the Demo hate-spewers have decompensated into an illness alternatively called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or the more formal “Trump Anxiety Disorder.”

 

But the escalating violence and the unprovoked attacks on Republicans and Trump supporters is no laughing matter.

 

The most notable of those attacks was in June 2017, when one of Bernie Sanders’s conscripts, an Obama “99%”er from Illinois, attempted the mass murder of congressional Republicans on a Virginia baseball field. This deranged Democrat severely wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and injured four others before being killed by Scalise’s security detail. Notably, if Scalise and his security team hadn’t attended this early morning practice, the other 11 members of Congress would have been utterly defenseless.

 

But the list of other assaults is long and growing more violent.

 

In the last two weeks, the Demos’ hate-filled constituencies have rioted in three cities: Providence, Rhode Island; Portland, Oregon; and Berkeley, California. I would include Washington, DC, on that list, but the police presence there last weekend largely contained the haters before they became violent, much to the Leftmedia’s dismay.

 

Antifa – Then & Now

 

It’s no small irony that leftist protesters are confusing conservatives with Nazis. Ironic, I note, because the hatred being driven by leftist Demo rhetoric is taking on shades of the 1934 “Night of the Long Knives” purges of the National Socialist German Workers Party, as there is a now-discernible trend of Democrat moderates being pushed aside for hyper-leftist candidates. The most notable case in point would be the defeat of 10-term Demo incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district by 28-year-old socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

 

If the brown shirt fits

 

As Rep. Steve King (R-IA), never one to shy away from hard-hitting and controversial remarks, observed recently, “America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Fort Sumter.”

 

We aren’t there yet.

 

Our nation’s Constitution and the Liberty it enshrines have been through cycles of assault by socialists, fascists, and anarchist groups for the last hundred years. But what differentiates the current cycle from those of the past is that past movements were never as organized and targeted, nor did they have the tacit approval of a major political party.

 

The escalating Demo-inspired violence certainly puts our nation on a collision course with disunity on a national scale — if it does not subside.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

______________________

[From TPP Email Notification:]

 

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (https://patriotpost.us/subscribe)”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN, 37401

 

[From Website:] Our Mission

 

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

 

Memo to the “progressive” Democratic Takers


Intro to ‘Memo to the “progressive” Democratic Takers

By Justin O. Smith

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted 5/18/17

 

Many Leftists like to describe themselves as Progressives. I have never liked that description because in my “Progressive” denotes a positive step forward.

 

There is nothing positive about a Leftist especially relative American Liberty and Freedom. Everything about the political Left is about government control of individuals deceptively masked as a progressive betterment of human society.

 

The thing is moving Left always results in some form of elitist totalitarianism. History demonstrates that if one decides to examine it, massive deaths of human lives all in the name of the some mythological greater good for the betterment of humanity.

 

According to Stéphane Courtois’s The Black Book of Communism, Communism is responsible for 100 million deaths, a number total that far exceeds Nazism, which left 16 million dead—and it eclipses the 20th century death tolls of lung cancer, diabetes, and homicides. (Communism: The Leading Ideological Cause of Death in the 20th Century; By Jim Liao; The Epoch Times; 1/25/17 12:20 PM – Last Updated: 3/16/17 2:54 pm)

 

The number of genocidal deaths may differ among demographic experts but not by much. Also, I find it interesting that most people view Nazism as a Right Wing phenomenon. People forget that Nazi is an acronym when translated into English is “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. Note the word “Socialist”. Socialism is a Leftist term. Thus, you can add Hitler’s Nazi regime accredited 16 million deaths to the Communists as far as I am concerned.

 

Hitler, Mao, Stalin & Pol Pot

 

With all the efforts of the Dem Party to undermine President Trump with hypocritical fake conspiracies that when compared to the real conspiracies attributed Obama, Slick Willie and Crooked Hillary; Americans concerned about Constitutional heritage should become extremely upset! And at the very least NEVER vote for a Dem Party candidate for any reason! Justin Smith goes into greater detail about the counter-American Marxism the Dems are leading America toward.

 

JRH 5/18/17

Please Support NCCR

************

Memo to the “progressive” Democratic Takers

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/17/2017 7:50 PM

 

To ALL Democrats and Socialists out there:

 

While You may not be a Marxist, You definitely support many of the anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-Constitution/Bill of Rights/property rights and anti-American ideas that have derived straight from the Ten Tenets of the Communist Manifesto [SEE Analysis], however inadvertently or knowingly that may or may not be.

 

When You ask for Us to “come together and make a change that works for all of us”, I am reminded of the numerous times that Progressive Democrats pushed for “compromise”, so long as that compromise was heavily lop-sided in their favor and pushing the country farther and farther towards full blown communism, just as Bernie Sanders Socialists now do.

 

Compromise is fine, where room exists for that compromise, but one can never compromise with Evil and proposals that VIOLATE core Truths and moral human decency and principles that support and defend liberty.

 

The party of Marx — the Democratic Party — has pushed their agenda too far, and You are still pushing even though You lost the election, as You riot in Our streets and attempt to burn down Our cities, clamoring for privileges to be made into “rights”.

 

Americans who love God, their family and America are working to move this country back closer to a government that is limited in scope and aligned with Constitutional principles, in response to the abrogation of much of the Constitution under Obama and through activist judges who departed from any rational premise based upon “the law”.

 

And before We see this nation chipped away at, further destroyed, by people who demand wants and desires as “their right”, many of Us are prepared to fight, to pick up arms if necessary, because once the government can determine that privileges are now “rights”, you can expect to see a tyranny unleashed in the nation never seen before, with citizens forced to bow at the altar of the State for survival and the country reduced to the lowest common denominator in poverty, a “utopian” Third World hellhole.

 

So I don’t really think We have so much in common at this point. Before I die on my knees begging for sustenance from the government, I’d rather fight for my God-given Rights as a Free Born Man to live my life as I see fit without government intrusions in areas that do not concern our so-called “leaders”. And before I see America lurch further into the Dark Red fields of Communism, single-payer systems-Medicare for all, total government control of natural resources including water, over-regulating businesses out of existence, I would rather fight to Live Free, but because like my Ol’ Daddy told me, after fighting fascists and communists in three different wars, “Better Dead Than Red”.

 

And I plan on Living Free or Dying in the Battle, in order that Freedom and Liberty are preserved for America’s Children and Their Children and generations beyond.

 

Some of You might live fairly decent lives in a humanist sort of style, but rather than reach out to Us, the Conservative Americans, You and Your people need to look inward and see that perhaps the nation has already been soaked of all it’s willing to part with. We’re $20 trillion in debt and rapidly approaching economic collapse, due largely to socialist programs that have caused a convergence of capitalism and communism, that will certainly fail. It’s past time for All Americans to look to themselves and their own personal responsibility to their families and, wherever it may apply, to each other.

 

May God Bless America for All Eternity.

 

Justin O Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

American Left can be seen in Nazi History


Hitler- BHO & Hillary

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

 

I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.

 

Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.

 

Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:

 

Acronym Finder

 

What does NSDAP stand for?

 

NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NAZI Party)

 

 

ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY

 

Nazi 

 

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.

The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname NaziNaczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.

An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi GermanyNazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.

 

The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.

 

Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.

 

Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.

 

Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:

 

  • Barack Obama

 

  • Hillary Clinton

 

JRH 5/27/16

Please Support NCCR

*******************

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 US Flag with Nazi flag paperclip

By Matt Barber [webpage lists him as Guest Columnist but at the end the essay attributed Barber]

May 26, 2016

Constitution.com

 

[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

– Adolf Hitler

 

Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.

 

As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”

 

Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.

 

“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”

 

Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.

 

“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”

 

The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.

 

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

 

That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”

 

In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

 

 

What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common

 

Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

 

Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.

 

That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.

 

This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”

 

Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”

 

Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.

 

Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”

 

Hitler a Christian? No chance.

 

Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin

 

Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:

 

“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”

 

Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

 

“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

 

Two thousand years and still waiting.

 

And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”

 

A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:

 

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

 

Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).

 

Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.

 

And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity,” a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

________________________

American Left can be seen in Nazi History

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

________________________

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

‘One Nation Under God’ According to Jon McNaughton


John R. Houk

© August 21, 2015

On the Facebook group Evangelicals Gathering To Pray for our Country I found an outstanding post on his painting “One Nation Under God”. The painting is by Jon McNaughton and it was a ‘share’ from his facebook page. McNaughton’s original post was on July 6, 2015. My original intention was to post McNaughton’s Facebook entry as I found it shared at the Pray for our Country group. But the Facebook video embed included the text which I found inconvenient for my purpose.

McNaughton makes a living painting very patriotic and symbolic portraits. His Facebook description does not do the painting the justice I believe it should get. So this is what I am going to do. I am going to cross post some Youtube versions that explains the portrait better. Including one video that shows close-ups with patriotic music in the background – very inspiring. I will also include the Jon McNaughton facebook post from July 6 to see if that video shows up when I embed it.

To be honest the Facebook post includes a link providing a way to purchase a print of “One Nation Under God” which is something I highly encourage. I also recommend you check out some other patriotic prints of some original McNaughton prints.

After the Facebook post I wish to include one extra video that is only 48 seconds explaining McNaughton’s portrait of Obama burning the U.S. Constitution.

JRH 8/21/15

Please Support NCCR

*******************

VIDEO: Artist John McNaughton gives a brief introduction to “One Nation Under God” painting

Posted by rockettelli

Posted on Aug 30, 2011

Watch patriotic artist John McNaughton explain some of the prominent figures in his historic painting, “One Nation Under God”. For a limited time, you can receive $5.00 off the purchase of his painting. In addition, you’ll also receive three 5×7 cards, the Constitution Booklet, a Reference Guide, and a 1 hour DVD of the artist explaining the story behind the painting and discussing all of the people featured in the painting. Go to buyonenationundergod.com [link is dead] and use Promo Code KCDISC5 to receive $5.00 off your order.

++

VIDEO: One Nation Under God – Jon McNaughton

Posted by Artsartisan

Posted on Dec 20, 2014

This video was created with thankful appreciation to Jon McNaughton. Jon, thanks for this beautiful painting which declares the profound truth of the creation of the United States of America. The music is performed by the Amen Choir and the London Philharmonic Orchestra. The music is from the album “Hymns Triumphant”.

Music: “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” by London Philharmonic Choir

++++++++++++

One Nation Under God – Jon McNaughton

By Jon McNaughton

Facebook Page

July 6, 2015 11:56am


This simple phrase, added to the pledge of allegiance over 50 years ago has been the source of unbelievable debate and heated controversy. Likewise, the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ on our currency has been targeted and continues to be attacked as improper and politically incorrect. Lawsuits have been filed and legal minds employed to ascertain whether such statements violate the concept of ‘separation of church and state’.

As this debate continues, some so called experts have implied or concluded that our Founding Fathers and Patriots were not religious. These secular champions, in an effort to further their own causes, have even painted these great men and women from our history as being devoid of religious passions or even a belief in God. This is a part of their strategy to remove any discussion of God from the public forum.

These men and women were passionately religious and saw the hand of God all around them. To God they gave Thanks for His Hand in the founding of this great nation. To Him, according to their own testimony they turned for wisdom and strength when life and liberty hung in the balance. Certainly the debate on separation of church and state will continue. But no one can dispute how our Founding Fathers and Patriots felt about God. The record is clear!

To order a print, please visit: http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/OneNationUnderGod.html

‘One Nation Under God’ is Jon McNaughton’s witness and reminder that those who went before us knew from whence their blessings came!

+++

One Nation Under God

MCNAUGHTON

McNaughton’s response to liberal criticisms of “One Nation Under God.”

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

  1. Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic. I don’t pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would instantly be recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way.
  1. The figures in the background have been the source of great debate. Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower right corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman’s place in the painting is explained on the website.)
  1. In connection to my last statement, I knew when I painted this picture that Thomas Payne (so sorry I offended some of you for spelling his name wrong), and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. That was irrelevant to me. I believe God brings about His purposes through different people. Even those who aren’t baptized or following the accepted Christian religion.
  1. Not only have I received flack for this painting from Liberals, but also from the Right as well. Why did you include JFK? Why Lincoln? Why Teddy Roosevelt? I painted this picture to reflect my personal feelings about America. This is not a Republican painting. This is not anything other than one artist’s personal feelings about his love for Christ, this country and a desire to make a point about where we are headed. I hoped that this painting would encourage dialogue and debate. It is important that you understand my position before you make assumptions.
  1. One of the most ridiculous criticisms I have read is that I don’t have enough minorities in the painting. The way people throw around the word “racist” these days is overkill. From the beginning of the painting I chose to include a variety for ethnicities under the “Strong Americans” category. I also used different races in the background where I could. One of the most important positions in the painting is where the black U. S. soldier is standing.
  1. Some of the chatter going around on these liberal blog sites I feel is unfounded. One of the things I said to myself from the beginning was the knee jerk reaction some people would have to the painting would be very revealing as to which side they personally stood in the picture. If you don’t believe the Constitution was inspired of God, fine. We will agree to disagree.
  1. Some so called “art experts” feel that a true painting should not be explained, but left to the viewer to interpret. I may not reveal all my thoughts, but I want the world to know what I think and feel—that’s why I painted it! Great art causes one to feel. To feel deeply. I knew this painting would evoke emotion on both sides. I knew it was a unique concept, having never been painted before. I don’t care if the composition is outdated or whether some other artist may have painted their composition better than me. The message stands alone.
  1. Why Satan? I don’t for a second believe he looks like that, but I do believe he is real. Again, the image is symbolic. Having Satan near these people doesn’t mean that they are Satanic. If you believe in God, surely you would believe in a Satan.
  1. OK, how could McNaughton be so ignorant about Charles Darwin and “Origin of the Species?” Yes, I have read the book and yes I do believe in many of the theories it espouses. What?! No, I don’t’ think the book should be burned and kicked out of the school curriculum. Some of the rebuttals I have heard in regard to this subject in my painting are unfounded. I believe that this book is a standard that the left uses to push Christianity out of the Educational Forum. I believe that we need faith in our schools. I believe that I did not evolve from an ape. You may disagree, but that is how I feel. Do I believe Evolution should be taught? Yes. Should Christian thought or any other religion be allowed to be discussed without reservation? Yes, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

This is my personal witness and testimony as to the state of this nation. If you would like to ask more questions about my painting, I invite you to do so. I would be pleased to answer any honest questions regarding, “One Nation Under God.”

+++++++++++++

VIDEO: One Nation Under Socialism – Jon McNaughton

Published by McNaughtonArt

Published on Mar 17, 2012

www.McNaughtonArt.com [Dead Link]

“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
And not to an ideology, which can never stand,
One nation under socialism, divisive,
With no liberty or justice for anyone.”

This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?

McNaughton’s Answers to Questions Regarding This Painting:
Why the title “One Nation Under Socialism?”

Our federal government has been moving in the direction of socialism for over one hundred years. Many presidents and politicians have compromised the Constitution as we have given away our freedoms under the guise of entitlements and government intervention. When the people are willing to sacrifice the next generation for their current lifestyles and allow the federal government to have all the power for an illusory mess of pottage—you have chosen One Nation Under Socialism.

What do you mean by an ideology, which can never stand?

I will not support an ideology, which will lead to the destruction of America. In the history of the world, never has there been a recorded example where Socialism has led to the betterment of the human condition or improved the liberty of the people. I know there are varying degrees and definitions of “socialism.” Even the European model of Democratic Socialism has proven to be a dismal failure. Do you want to see our country become like Greece, Italy, Portugal, or even Great Britain?

What do you mean by “divisive, with no liberty or justice for anyone?”

Socialism uses the illusion of offering fairness and justice for everyone by redistributing the wealth of the nation; picking and choosing winners and losers. This administration has taken over our health care system, given bailouts to the automotive industry, banking industry and energy industry. They support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of increased taxing of the rich to pay for the welfare of the “less rich.” The Constitution never guaranteed equal things—only equal rights and justice. In America we should be FREE TO SUCCEED and FREE TO FAIL!

At this very moment our Constitution is literally going up in flames. What will you do to preserve the Constitution and save America?

Why Socialism Failed …

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-socialism-failed [Link dead as of this posting]

Learn more at: http://www.jonmcnaughton.com

______________________

About Jon McNaughton

Jon McNaughton is an established artist from Utah whose new paintings have attracted the international attention of millions over the last few years. Highly detailed religious and patriotic subjects are the focus of his paintings. The artist’s experiences and faith are the inspiration for his work.

“I have traveled to many places around the world to know my subjects, but when I work on a painting with many figures I will usually pose models and photograph them and then paint them as I see them in my mind. I choose to paint from the heart and evoke my personal vision into each painting.”

I prefer to paint pictures that I believe have relevance to what is going on in the world, that make a statement, that stand for something. I hope people will study the paintings and try to understand the deeper meaning. Some of the themes are controversial, but I feel strongly about what is happening in our world today.

There are three kinds of people who view my paintings: Those who like it, those who hate it, and those who simply don’t understand. I am especially interested in this last category. I hope my work will create conversation and reach people on a deeper level. I like to use metaphor and multiple levels of meaning to reach my viewer. If it makes them think and feel, then it is successful.”

Appreciate your Thanksgiving while YOU Can


First Thanksgiving. Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1899)

John R. Houk
© November 26, 2014
 
My childhood years were in the 1960s. I tend to remember the good times nostalgically more than times when this only child found himself in moments of parental discipline. For me the 60s might be viewed as a combination of “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Sandlot”.
 
 
 
 
Those videos reflect fun memories of a sixties childhood.
 
Now didn’t grow up in an overtly Christian household; however the lifestyle reflected prevalent values of most Americans whether or not they were Church-going. The memories that stand out often come down to holidays and vacations. Where I grew up Central Washington the month of November was typically the beginning of some cold days. Some of those cold days might even include some snow. As a kid I was not a big fan of horsing around in the cold. As Thanksgiving Day drew closer the days tended to be colder. Unless the kids in the neighborhood could coax me outside I was typically a couch potato during the cold.
 
Thanks largely to Grade School history lessons on Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims I became stoked for television specials with Thanksgiving themes. In those days those specials were numerous whether they were animation based or live action. Those stories of Thanksgiving were designed to imprint children with a favorable view of the holiday.
 
All that was a positive narrative of the Thanksgiving story were there: Pilgrim travels, the Mayflower voyage and learning to survive in the New World after landing on Plymouth Rock. The surviving part was typically portrayed as a rough winter, uncertain relation with Indians, Indian friendship, Indian mentoring and followed with the Pilgrims conquering their habitat ending with a feast of their farming success, wild turkey hunting and the Indians sharing of hunted deer.
 
The positive conclusion was giving thanks to God Almighty for prosperity, overcoming hardship and peace and harmony with the Pilgrims’ Indian neighbors. (I am fairly certain the Pilgrims would have no idea of what a Native American was. Indeed words that were not necessarily meant as a pejorative were probably closer to Savage, Red Man or Redskin. I wonder what appellations the Indians used for White America.) AND thus all’s well that ends well, right?
 
The reality is that bad things happened to the Pilgrims. They first fled to the Netherlands. Then cultural concerns pertaining to Pilgrim children assimilating into Dutch culture began to be a concern. Dutch culture was a bit looser than the Puritan-Separatist Christian culture promoted by the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims were experiencing Religious Freedom but their identity as faithful Christians was becoming compromised.
 
The Pilgrims fled England to escape the Religious intolerance of the Crown’s Church of England and now they intended to move again to escape the worldly influence of the Dutch majority. America became that choice. The Pilgrims thus organized to sail from the Netherlands back to England and on to the New World of America. They had to get a “patent or license” from a royal English company for land to colonize. The business venture the Pilgrims worked with was the Virginia Company of London.
 
The Pilgrims sought Crown permission for the religious liberty to practice their Puritan faith. The King did not specifically come through with the request, BUT neither did he deny it. The Pilgrims took the absence of religious instructions as a sign of favor and thus planned for the voyage.
 
The original contingent for the voyage was actually a mixture of the Puritan-Pilgrims and not so religious “adventurers”. The two components of the trip ultimately had different agendas upon landing and working with the patent to establish a company plantation.
 
The Pilgrims desired Religious Liberty and to be missionaries to the Native Americans. The adventurers were looking for a stake find economic self-sufficiency that wasn’t available in jolly old England. There was contention between the two groups. It didn’t help when the second ship of the venture forced the Mayflower to return to England because the second ship (Speedwell) would not have made it across the Atlantic Ocean without sinking. Pilgrims and adventurers not deterred by frustrated loaded up on the crowded Mayflower to sail to the Hudson Bay area.
 
The Mayflower made it to Cape Cod (the Plymouth Rock-Massachusetts area) after just a little over two months. Their Patent was for a location further north along the coast. Stormy seas prevent the Mayflower to make its destination. The Pilgrims thus decided to return to the Cape Cod area seeing the stormy whether as a sign from God.
 
The contention between the two groups eventually led to a dispute about the rules and who should obey them, especially they decided to build in a place outside their original patent. After a bit of disharmony the passengers of the Mayflower put together a compact that would be the foundation for self-government at least until the Patent issue was straightened out. The heads male heads of the Mayflower families signed the agreement as binding which became known as the Mayflower Compact:
 
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.
 
To view signature go to the webpage. The above rendition has been updated to 21st Century English from the 17th English of the Pilgrims (Mayflower Compact: 1620; Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth: 1620; The Avalon ProjectYale Law School)
 
Yeah take that Left Wing history revisionists. The Mayflower Compact is an example of other Charters, Patents and License dedicating government to God and King.
 
In the first years of the Plymouth Colony the form of government under God ironically resembled Socialism more than Free Market Capitalism. The Pilgrim placed all their food in a common store available to all equally. The fruits of the labor were also a part of this common store. The effect of this socialism was the lazy majority began to depend on the working few for sustenance. The first two years of the Plymouth Colony was the experience of the lack of food, which resulted in starvation, disease and death. Many of the colony became thieves and stole from the common store rather than work productively to perpetuate the utopian dream of equal sufficiency for all. The few working colonialists that suffered lack began to be frustrated when all their work was divided among the slacker majority.
 
But, with no shelter, and immune systems weakened by the rough voyage, they began to get sick. Colds became bronchitis, and pneumonia set in. The dreaded killer of ship’s passengers—scurvy—and other “wasting sicknesses” ravaged their number. With no effective medicines, they began to die. In January and February the deaths sometimes reached two and three a day; 17 dying in February alone. At one point, there were only five people well enough to be on their feet, caring for the rest. Toward the end of March, when the worst was over, they had lost 47 of their number. Of the 18 wives who had come, 13 had died. Only three families remained unbroken. They were in real trouble, for the food they had brought on the Mayflower was virtually gone, and they were facing an unhospitable wilderness. (The True History and Real Meaning of Thanksgiving; Posted by Sword At-The-Read; from Peter J. Marshall © 2007; posted 11/21/07)
 
Socialism wasn’t working! Hello President Barack Hussein Obama.
 
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
 
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
 
What happened?
 
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
 
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
 
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
 
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines. (The Great Thanksgiving Hoax; By Richard J. Maybury; Mises Institute; 11/20/1999)
 
God enabling perseverance and Free Market thinking brought prosperity to the Pilgrims thus it probably wasn’t until the fruits of 1624 was there any real Thanksgiving.
 
The lessons of Thanksgiving are extremely important to our heritage as Americans.
 
Americans came to the New World to worship the Christian freely and to rely on strength to survive endowed by the Creator. God was and should always be thanked for overcoming struggles individually and corporately as a people.
 
Early Socialist-like experiments failed to succeed across the board in Colonial America.
 
Free Market Capitalism engendered individual self-sufficiency which in turn led trade in the community and outside the colony. The lazy self-entitled died while the thrifty individuals tied to their property succeeded.
 
Community standards were dedicated to Christian Morality instilling concepts of good and evil government in the rule of law.
 
Once America became a Republic, individual Presidents annually world declare a day of Thanksgiving before God for the peace and posterity of the USA. Apparently Abraham Lincoln had a religious epiphany while gazing to the Battle of Gettysburg graves leading to him to declare the last Thursday in November to a day of Thanksgiving in 1863. Each President after Lincoln followed suit with Lincoln’s last Thursday in November declaration. The 1941 Congress permanently made Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday of November a Federal Holiday. To this day in 2014 Thanksgiving is celebrated. Unless Separation of Church-State Leftists get their unconstitutional way by keeping the Christian faith out of government by an Obamination social transformation, our Republic will continue to have Thanksgiving.
 
Save the Republic of the United States of America from transformist thinking by keeping America free by holding these truths as self-evident: “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
 
Check out:
 
 
 
 
JRH 11/26/14

Please Support NCCR

Nefarious Presidential Actions – Calvin Coolidge to FDR


 Calvin Coolidge & Quote

IH022375

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John R. Houk

© August 11, 2014

 

Here is the next group of Presidents that may have been involved in impeachable crimes. In the last post of Nefarious Presidential Actions was Teddy to Harding. Just as a point of reprise these posts are in response to a G+ exchange between myself and Gideon Money who is one of the Liberals that can’t see past the Obama cover-up with the typical blind support for President Barack Hussein Obama and his impeachable actions:

 

Me:

 

Gideon fewer Executive Orders does not translate into less unConstitutional actions. Obama’s EO’s contradict the Constitution’s Separation of Powers instituted by the Founding Fathers.

 

Gideon Money:

 

How so? Be specific and use SCOTUS precedent, not Fox talking points.

 

Calvin Coolidge: 8/2/1923 to 3/4/1929

 

At 2:30 on the morning of August 3, 1923, while visiting in Vermont, Calvin Coolidge received word that he was President. By the light of a kerosene lamp, his father, who was a notary public, administered the oath of office as Coolidge placed his hand on the family Bible.

 

Coolidge was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. “His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history … in a time of extravagance and waste….” (Calvin Coolidge; WhiteHouse.gov)

 

Notorious for saying practically nothing when not giving a public speech, Calvin Coolidge takes the second spot of controversial-free presidents on this list. His no-nonsense presidency restored public faith in the office after the scandal-wracked presidency of Harding. (Calvin Coolidge; By Freeman Stevenson; Deseret News; 3/20/13 12:51 p.m. MDT)

 

Herbert Hoover: 3/4/1929 – 3/4/1933

 

As a kid growing up in Washington State, whenever Herbert Hoover’s name was mentioned in my family the look of disgust came from both my Grandmother and my Mother. My Grandmother was a young adult and mother of three children during the depression and my Mother was one of those children. Their memories of Conservative Republican President Hoover were not fond. My Grandmother and Mother idolized Hoover’s successor – President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My family blamed Hoover for the Depression making them lifelong Democrats.

 

As much as the voting Americans blamed Hoover for the Great Depression he really did nothing impeachable. Hoover became unpopular and with about seven or eight months left in his term of Office in election year 1932 (Hoover would later loose in a landslide to FDR), an incident took place which was huge at the time. In 1924 WWI veterans were promised a bonus that would mature in 1945. By 1932 the Great Depression was in full swing in the USA with unemployed, homeless and hungry Americans all over the place. This included WWI veterans who were involved in the world’s most horrific war in terms wounded and killed in history. The WWI veterans began to grumble for an early payment of their promised 1945 bonus to occur in 1932. To protest WWI vets, their wives and children organized a march to Washington DC to make their grievance clear to Congress and President Hoover. The organized marchers called themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force (BEF) after the term used for the U.S. Army contingent sent to Europe to fight Kaiser Wilhelm’s German army in 1917. That contingent was called the American Expeditionary Force. The American press called the BEF the Bonus Army, the Bonus March or the Bonus Army March.

 

I have read three versions of what happened during this march. I can summarize the part that might have been impeachable for Hoover. The U.S. Army led by General Douglas MacArthur was sent to Washington DC to break up and disperse the BEF. Violent confrontation eventually took place and a few veterans died and wives and children were under threat of MacArthur led violence. The impeachable Offense was in using the Army as a police force in a domestic issue with the use of armed infantry and tanks. According to a Congressional Act passed in 1878, mobilizing the army to engage in police action on U.S. was supposed to be illegal without prior authorization from Congress. This law is still on the books today and is called the Posse Comitatus Act:

 

This article is about a United States statute prohibiting the use of the armed forces for law enforcement. For the sheriffs powers of law enforcement at common law, see posse comitatus. For the terrorist organization, see The Posse Comitatus.

 

The Posse Comitatus Act is a law of the United States (18 USC 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

 

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include

 

·         National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state

 

·         troops when used in pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the Rodney King riots

 

The relevant legislation is as follows:

 

Sec. 1385. – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

 

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

 

The three versions I read have a bit different views of what happened with the most detailed being written by a person that begins by glorifying FDR as a person that “rewrote history”. The brief description is then clarified in the most positive of lights.

 

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

 

 

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans’ campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

 

 

…  Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the police to remove the Bonus Army veterans from their camp. When the veterans moved back into it, they rushed two policemen trapped on the second floor of a building. The cornered police drew their revolvers and shot two veterans, William Hushka and Eric Carlson, who died later.[11][12]

 

 

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered[citation needed] the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, “Shame! Shame!”

 

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested.[12] A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”[16]

 

During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later the 34th President of the United States, served as one of MacArthur’s junior aides.[17] Believing it wrong for the Army’s highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: “I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there,” he said later. “I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.”[18] Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army’s official incident report which endorsed MacArthur’s conduct.[19]

 

READ ENTIRETY (Bonus Army; Wikipedia; last modified 7/24/14 at 22:39)

 

… Herbert Hoover was still president, an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers – 17,000 World War I veterans, plus their families, and affiliated groups – many being penniless and despairing – gathered in Washington, D.C. Their goal was simple: in the starving season of despair that engulfed America, now known as the Great Depression, the veterans rather reasonably begged for the early distribution of funds the government promised them. Specifically, they wanted immediate payment of a soldiers’ “bonus” promised by the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924; the bonus was to be distributed in 1945 but if the men could receive it in 1932 it was estimated it would amount to approximately $500 per man.

 

 

The BEF marchers encamped in parks, dumps, abandoned warehouses, and empty stores. They were unarmed and determined to act like peaceful and law abiding citizens; they had taken care to ferret out and expel radicals preaching revolution and violence from their ranks. Despite their evident hunger they didn’t panhandle. To many observers they appeared too weak and pitiful to pose a menace; one reporter described them as “ragged, weary… with no hope on their faces.”

 

… It’s estimated that over one hundred thousand Washingtonians lined the streets as the veterans marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.  …

 

 

… Their vigil became a test of endurance and heartbreak and was watched by the entire nation.

 

The President, his Attorney General William Mitchell, and most of Congress railed against the BEF as “dangerous insurgents” and “violent socialists.” The Hearst newspapers and other conservative organs decried them as radicals; many said there wasn’t a true veteran among their number, that they were fakes and frauds and criminals. Others took pity; truckloads of food arrived from goodhearted people all over the country. A hundred loaves of bread were shipped each day from a sympathetic baker and pies came from another. Many people worried about the women and children and a health inspector described the encampments spread around Washington as “extremely bad and unhealthful.” The men tried to raise money by staging boxing and wrestling bouts among themselves and charging the locals a small admission to watch; they willingly beat themselves into submission and raised about $2500.00 to buy food and small comforts.

 

 

… The police, under the supervision of a retired general named Pelham Glassford, tried to respond with a degree of kindness. After Hoover made it clear he was going to do absolutely nothing to alleviate their hardship, the police began to offer weak coffee, stale bread and watered down stew at six cents a day to the marchers. This enraged Hoover who said the police were pandering to criminals. Congress formally rebuked Glassford for ever allowing the marchers to enter the city in the first place. The police department’s small relief effort withered away under the glare of presidential and Congressional condemnation.

 

The BEF was a humiliation to the Administration and as summer wore on there was an overall hardening across the land against the BEF. The majority of the country’s newspapers took up the cause on behalf of Hoover, his Attorney General and those in Congress, all of whom continued to insist the marchers were dangerous socialists and anarchists, and that most had never served one day in service to their country. Typically, many Americans were persuaded by such official claims – but not all. Will Rogers said the BEF had the “record for being the best behaved” of any “hungry men assembled anywhere in the world” and some military leaders like General Billy Mitchell and Marine Corps General Smedley Butler had the courage to say the men should be paid their bonuses early.

 

… most military leaders agreed with Hoover. One of them, Brigadier General George Moseley, wanted the bonus marchers arrested and sent to “concentration camps on one of the sparsely inhabited islands of the Hawaiian group not suitable for growing sugar” so they could “stew in their own filth.” Moseley also thought that while the government was in the business of rounding up American citizens it might as well do it right and round up people of “inferior blood” (presumably to be handled in similar fashion). Remarkably, no one thought Moseley was a lunatic. Years later Dwight Eisenhower, who knew Moseley well, described him as “a brilliant” and “dynamic officer.”

 

On July 28th the Attorney General declared the BEF was “guilty of begging and other acts” and ordered police chief Glassford to evacuate all veterans encamped on any piece of government property. Police wielding nightsticks decided to first clear out abandoned buildings where some of the BEF squatted and their raid began peacefully enough because most of the marchers were taken by surprise and disorganized. Word spread quickly, however, and angry BEF reinforcements arrived from camps across town. They began to throw bricks and the police fired back; horrified, Glassford shouted orders for the police to hold their fire, but the skirmish cost two veterans their lives and several more were seriously wounded.

 

Hoover was appalled; he ordered Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley to deploy troops. Hoover also issued a communiqué announcing the military would “put an end to rioting and defiance of civil authority” and charging that the men who clashed with police were “entirely of the Communist element.”

 

Secretary of War Hurley gave the order to Four-Star General Douglas MacArthur. … A young career officer named Dwight D. Eisenhower was MacArthur’s aide and Ike strongly protested against military intervention; he warned his boss it was a “political matter for civilian authorities.” Specifically, he called the clash between the BEF and the police a “street corner brawl” and said it was inappropriate for a general to become involved in a local political issue.

 

MacArthur, of course, disagreed. “There is incipient revolution in the air!” he snapped. “We’re going to break the back of the BEF.”

 

 

On July 28, 1932, at 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. …

 

… The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”

 

READ ENTIRETY (The Bonus Expeditionary Force, and today; By Larry Pierce; 4dtraveler.net; 8/4/11 7:41 AM)

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945

 

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first “hundred days,” he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

 

 

As the war [i.e. WWII] drew to a close, Roosevelt’s health deteriorated, and on April 12, 1945, while at Warm Springs, Georgia, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. (Franklin D. Roosevelt; WhiteHouse.gov)

 

Gideon Money will decry the sources I use as information on FDR information. The reason being criticism of FDR is still considered a moral evil by Liberals-Leftists-Progressives just as criticism and exposés of Obama are considered a moral evil. So am going to share some FDR criticism from respected Conservatives. Trust me I can find some FDR criticism that has enough elements of truth to sound credible but the polemical style is so vindictive that the Progressive crowd can easily refute the vindictiveness as Right Wing propaganda. Really stabbing on FDR is the website WhatReallyHappened.com which takes some evidentiary facts and make them sound like pejorative pros. That website’s post of the FDR Scandal Page is full of info that I know Gideon will dismiss as unsubstantiated information. If you check out the full link there is the appearance that WhatReallyHappened.com did a little cross posting from a Geocites page. Progressives and Liberals alike can be somewhat critical of a Joe-American free website posting exposés. Hence in all honesty I used the FDR Scandal Page as a reference to search from more reputable Conservatives.

 

Recall when I was examining Herbert Hoover that I wrote my Grandmother and Mother grew up in during the Great Depression. I shared the family that raised me loathed Hoover in blame for this Depression and idolized FDR for fixing the roughly decade long Depression.

 

The program developed by the FDR Administration was called the New Deal. The problem I have with my family idolizing FDR was more the result of a very effective propaganda campaign that simply did not match the reality of the statistics.

 

For 70 years there has been a holy creed–spread by academia until accepted by media and most Americans–that Franklin D. Roosevelt cured the Great Depression. That belief spurred the growth of modern liberalism; conservatives are still on the defensive where modern historians are concerned.

 

Not so anymore when the facts are considered. Now a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute has demonstrated that (a) not only did Roosevelt not end the Depression, but (b) by incompetent measures, he prolonged it. But FDR’s myth has sold. Roosevelt, the master of the fireside chat, was powerful. His style has been equaled but not excelled.

 

Throughout the New Deal period, median unemployment was 17.2 percent. Joblessness never dipped below 14 percent, writes Jim Powell in a preview of his soon-to-be-published (by Crown Forum) FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Powell argues that the major cause of the Depression was not stock market abuses but the Federal Reserve, which contracted the money supply by a third between 1929 and 1933. Then, the New Deal made it more expensive to hire people, adding to unemployment by concocting the National Industrial Recovery Act, which created some 700 cartels with codes mandating above-market wages. It made things worse, ”by doubling taxes, making it more expensive for employers to hire people, making it harder for entrepreneurs to raise capital, demonizing employers, destroying food . . . breaking up the strongest banks, forcing up the cost of living, channeling welfare away from the poorest people and enacting labor laws that hit poor African Americans especially hard,” Powell writes.

 

Taxes spiraled (as a percentage of gross national product), jumping from 3.5 percent in 1933 to 6.9 percent in 1940. An undistributed profits tax was introduced. Securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. In ”an unprecedented crusade against big employers,” the Justice Department hired 300 lawyers, who filed 150 antitrust lawsuits. Winning few prosecutions, the antitrust crusade not only flopped, but wracked an already reeling economy. At the same time, a retail price maintenance act allowed manufacturers to jack up retail prices of branded merchandise, which blocked chain stores from discounting prices, hitting consumers.

 

Roosevelt’s central banking ”reform” broke up the strongest banks, those engaged in commercial investment banking, ”because New Dealers imagined that securities underwriting was a factor in all bank failures,” but didn’t touch the cause of 90 percent of the bank failures: state and federal unit banking laws. Canada, which allowed nationwide branch banking, had not a single bank failure during the Depression. The New Deal Fed hiked banks’ reserve requirement by 50 percent in July 1936, then increased it another 33.3 percent. This ”triggered a contraction of the money supply, which was one of the most important factors bringing on the Depression of 1938–the third most severe since World War I. Real GNP declined 18 percent and industrial production was down 32 percent.”

 

Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration hit the little guy worst of all, Powell writes. In 1934, Jacob Maged, a 49-year-old immigrant, was fined and jailed three months for charging 35 cents to press a suit rather rather (sic) than 40 cents mandated by the Fed’s dry cleaning code. The NRA was later ruled unconstitutional. To raise farm prices, Roosevelt’s farm policy plowed under 10 million acres of cultivated land, preventing wheat, corn and other crops from reaching the hungry. Hog farmers were paid to slaughter about 6 million young hogs, protested by John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation’s poorest region. ”A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams,” Powell writes. ”Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.”

 

In contrast, the first Depression of the 20th century, in 1920, lasted only a year after Warren Harding cut taxes, slashed spending and returned to the poker table. But with the Great Depression, the myth has grown that unemployment and economic hardship were ended by magical New Deal fiat. The truth: The Depression ended with the buildup to World War II. (FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed; Originally posted at Chicago Sun-Times [link dead]; By Thomas Roeser [Wikipedia bio] on 9/30/03; Posted at Free Republic by Cathryn Crawford; posted on 8/30/2003 1:59:46 PM [I know the dates don’t match up but that is how it is found on Free Republic])

 

In 2008 (2009 in paperback) Burton W. Folsom, Jr. wrote a book with a similar title Roeser’s review (entitled: FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed) of Jim Powell’s book written in 2003: “FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression” (similar PDF written for CATO Institute). Folsom’s book is entitled “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America”. I realize Folsom, Roeser and Powell are people that express a Conservative view on Economics. This means my critic Gideon Money would cry ‘these guys are Conservatives and hence Right Wing propagandists and unreliable.’

 

The problem I have with such a cop-out criticism is that if you click on the bios I linked to their names, you will see they well educated with MA’s and Ph.D.’s. These guys are Academics that paid their dues in acquiring their degrees. Just because they affiliate themselves with Conservative politics, history and/or Economics does not make them non-credentialed. So if Gideon’s maintains the inept line of Right Wing Propagandists then that exposes his prejudice more than validates his argument.

 

Here is another well respected Academic – Thomas Sowell – who is a Free Market Economist that praises Folsom’s book on FDR Folly written at the often dissed Conservative Internet news site WorldNetDaily:

 

Guess who said the following: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

 

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. He added, “After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”


This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled “New Deal or Raw Deal?” by professor Burton W. Folsom Jr. of Hillsdale College.

 

 

Roosevelt blamed the country’s woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

 

Whole generations have been “educated” to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History textbooks by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

 

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom’s book “New Deal or Raw Deal?” breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper – and a lot more informative than most.

 

 

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the Depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt’s ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

… (FDR’S ‘RAW DEAL’: Thomas Sowell recommends new book exposing true nature of Roosevelt’s policies: By Thomas Sowell; WND; 11/2/10 12:00 AM)

 

 

The very first task undertaken by Roosevelt upon taking office was saving the country’s banks, which had shut down the day of his inauguration. … And by saving the system they meant consolidating the hold of the biggest banks.

 

 

Once the system was saved from total meltdown, Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” initiated a variety of programs to convince the country that they could end the Depression. One such was the public works program, most famous in its later WPA (Works Progress Administration) incarnation, but originally known as the Public Works Administration, and which was originally proposed by some FDR advisers to work in tandem with the National Recovery Administration. Together the two would hasten recovery: the former would put money in the pockets of workers so that they could spend them on businesses overseen by the latter.

 

 

Says Schlesinger: “though the code authority exercised public powers, it was not a public body. It was, as [NRA administrator Hugh] Johnson put it, ‘an agency of the employers in an industry.’” The result was just enough renewed economic activity to keep the biggest corporations from going under. Thus Maurice Spector could write in the New International in 1938 that there had been no recovery in the sense of an expansion of capital, of increasing opportunities for accumulation, which is the norm for a recovering capitalist economy. Instead “capital secured its profits by restriction” of production, reviving existing production facilities to levels still below the 1920s peaks. In fact it’s universally acknowledged, even by the most ardent mainstream academic defenders of Roosevelt, that the system did not fully recover until the war and the associated meteoric expansion of production for war.

 

 

By his second term Roosevelt was facing a rising tide of dissatisfaction among workers and farmers, as well as demands from the ruling class that reforms be stopped now that the immediate crisis had passed. Roosevelt was more than happy to stop the family feud with the more conservative capitalists disgruntled at the “socialistic” nature of his early projects. But Roosevelt’s turn toward the War Deal wasn’t based solely on such narrow political calculations: he was in fundamental agreement with his ruling class colleagues that the country’s economic and social crises couldn’t be solved within the confines of its borders but required international economic expansion. And such expansion, given the worldwide extent of the Depression and the resulting manic search by all imperial powers for new markets and fields for capital investment both at home and abroad, could only be achieved by war.

 

 

Preis summarizes the switch thus: “The ‘New Deal’ proved to be a brief, ephemeral period of mild reforms granted under pressure of militant mass action by the organized workers, both employed and unemployed. By late 1937, Roosevelt had adopted the policy of propping up basic industry with government war orders, while cutting relief expenditures even though unemployment rose. The ‘New Deal’ became the ‘War Deal.’”

 

READ ENTIRETY (Myth of Benevolent Roosevelt Democrats: The Real Deal on the “New Deal”; By Andrew Pollack; Labor Standard)

 

 

Once FDR had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting: “The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.” Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.”

 

In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.

 

 

“The New Deal,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment, a moment when socialists in many countries were increasingly becoming nationalists and nationalists could embrace nothing other than socialism.”

 

Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, writes Goldberg, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.” Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism. Goldberg explains:

 

“The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”

 

The German and American New Deals — i.e., fascism and progressivism — also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” …

 

 

Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was perhaps the most popular program of the New Deal, mobilizing some 2.5 million young men to work mostly as a “forestry army,” performing such tasks as clearing dead wood. …

 

 

Johnson and the NRA dispatched a large army of informants, represented by such diverse constituencies as union members and Boy Scouts, to monitor compliance with the Blue Eagle program in neighborhoods across the United States. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird,” Johnson said.

To further promote voluntary compliance with the Blue Eagle program, Johnson organized many military parades and Nuremberg-style rallies, where marchers donned the uniforms of their respective occupations.

The fascist mindset underlying the NRA’s authoritarian mandates was confirmed in the results of a study commissioned by the NRA’s own Research and Planning Division. Titled “Capitalism and Labor Under Fascism,” it concluded: “The fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and so are of particular interest at this time.”

 

 

Soon after having taken his second Oath of Office in January 1937, President Roosevelt, in a conversation with a speechwriter, articulated his belief that the limits on governmental power that were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution were impediments to the transformative social and economic policies he wished to implement:

 

“When the chief justice read me the oath and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy — not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'” READ ENTIRETY (THE PROGRESSIVE ERA’S LEGACY: FDR’S NEW DEAL; Source attributed to Jonah Goldberg; DTN)

 

FDR was elected to an unbeatable record four terms. A record due to blank Amendment inspired by those four terms. FDR barely got into his fourth term when he was taken down by a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945.

 

FDR also his share of personal scandals pertaining to mistresses and his wife Eleanor. I have run out of space and time to write about those here. Even in the 1940s Christian Morality was still central as cultural mainstay. In all probability if FDR’s tryst became proven public knowledge I suspect would have resigned. As I had written earlier I used the WhatReallyHappened.com article entitled, “FDR Scandal Page” as a template for looking up more scholastic articles. The first paragraph of that page begins the personal scandals as an exposé. A more even tempered of what is proven about FDR and Eleanor’s personal life can be found at the Scandalous Women blog entitled, “FDR and his Women”.

 

 

JRH 8/11/14

Please Support NCCR

 

 

22 Signs That Barack Obama Is Transforming America Into A Larger Version Of North Korea


Thanks to Coffee and Sleepless Nights here is an essay highlighting 22 reasons Barack Obama’s Presidency is transforming the USA into a North Korea-like nation.