The Social Security Conundrum

[regent]

"....loaned to businesses to buy more products that already sat on the shelves and couldn't be sold."

Rather than to the Americans who needed same, FDR sent these materials to his brother-from-another-mother, Joseph Stalin....

"He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, and put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.



Of course, there was never any chance of a Russian collapse, nor of a German victory.


An interesting passage from Larsson's best seller, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo:"

“In the early hours of June 22 in 1941, Lobach knocked on the door of my bedroom. My room was next to his wife’s bedroom, and he signalled me to be quiet, get dressed, and come with him. We went downstairs and sat in the smoking salon. Lobach had been up all night. He had the radio on, and I realised that something serious had happened. Operation Barbarossa had begun. Germany had invaded the Soviet Union on Midsummer Eve.” Vanger gestured in resignation. “Lobach took out two glasses and poured a generous aquavit for each of us. He was obviously shaken. When I asked him what it all meant, he replied with foresight that it meant the end for Germany and Nazism. I only half believed him—Hitler seemed undefeatable, after all—but Lobach and I drank a toast to the fall of Germany. Then he turned his attention to practical matters.”
Stieg Larsson, “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,” p. 199


Soooo......why defend Stalin and Soviet Communism down to the last drop of American blood???

And what is the point of your tattoo bit? In fact, what is the point of most of your posts? What is it, that you are trying to say? Is your goal to make FDR a bad president or what? If so, that goal has been settled some years ago, and in FDR's favor.

The point is

a. to reveal the sham that was Franklin Roosevelt

and

b. to reveal what a dunce you are.


I believe both aims have been accomplished.

Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians that have rated presidents since 1948? But maybe you're right, one had to live through the Great Depression and WWII to understand what went on. But then again there are the historian's history books you can't seem to find.

"Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians ..."


That's not my mission.

My aim is simply to provide the facts, and make it clear that fools.....you.....have no way to refute them, yet stick to the dogma you've been brought up on.


Nor am I the only one.....

".....the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

1. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

1. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle. But.....the truth comes out....and I am in the vanguard.

 

[regent]

And what is the point of your tattoo bit? In fact, what is the point of most of your posts? What is it, that you are trying to say? Is your goal to make FDR a bad president or what? If so, that goal has been settled some years ago, and in FDR's favor.

The point is

a. to reveal the sham that was Franklin Roosevelt

and

b. to reveal what a dunce you are.


I believe both aims have been accomplished.

Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians that have rated presidents since 1948? But maybe you're right, one had to live through the Great Depression and WWII to understand what went on. But then again there are the historian's history books you can't seem to find.

"Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians ..."


That's not my mission.

My aim is simply to provide the facts, and make it clear that fools.....you.....have no way to refute them, yet stick to the dogma you've been brought up on.


Nor am I the only one.....

".....the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

1. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

1. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle. But.....the truth comes out....and I am in the vanguard.

Well if any president could have been a dictator it was FDR, he was president when a lot of dictators were becoming dictators. yet when FDR died one of his sons did not assume the presidency but rather vice president Truman. Just like it says in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And what is the point of your tattoo bit? In fact, what is the point of most of your posts? What is it, that you are trying to say? Is your goal to make FDR a bad president or what? If so, that goal has been settled some years ago, and in FDR's favor.

The point is

a. to reveal the sham that was Franklin Roosevelt

and

b. to reveal what a dunce you are.


I believe both aims have been accomplished.

Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians that have rated presidents since 1948? But maybe you're right, one had to live through the Great Depression and WWII to understand what went on. But then again there are the historian's history books you can't seem to find.

"Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians ..."


That's not my mission.

My aim is simply to provide the facts, and make it clear that fools.....you.....have no way to refute them, yet stick to the dogma you've been brought up on.


Nor am I the only one.....

".....the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

1. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda. Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

1. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle. But.....the truth comes out....and I am in the vanguard.

Well if any president could have been a dictator it was FDR, he was president when a lot of dictators were becoming dictators. yet when FDR died one of his sons did not assume the presidency but rather vice president Truman. Just like it says in the Constitution.

"if any president could have been a dictator it was FDR..."

IF??????


What prevents America from becoming a dictatorship is the Constitution.


1. Madison wrote, in Federalist #47, " No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa47.htm

2. Therein lies the description of Roosevelt. In 1937, he tried to pack the judiciary, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

a. Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny," but, when Roosevelt announced it, issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal." Lock-step Liberals.

b. Conservative Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

3. It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists.
Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63

4. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Manly, p. 65.


5. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2




And, as always,....there is nothing in the post that you will be able to refute.

 

[regent]

The Supreme Court began as a political entity, and remains so.
From 1779 the number on the Court has changed six times by a Congress looking to get favorable verdicts.
Read some history.


















from

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Supreme Court began as a political entity, and remains so.
From 1779 the number on the Court has changed six times by a Congress looking to get favorable verdicts.
Read some history.

Read some history????

I teach you history with every post......I can't help it if you are such a slow learner.


Articulate your reference to the Supreme Court, and I'll teach you more....
















from