Texas Went All In on MAGA… But Look What They Got”
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
You people with TDS are so pathetic you attempt to make political points when there's dead babies body still not not recovered you're pathetic...just like this woman used to seek psychological help
Pediatrician fired for vile post suggesting Texas flood victims were Trump supporters who got ‘what they voted for’
Dr. Christina B. Propst drew widespread scorn following the disparaging, since-deleted post under her old Facebook username, Chris Tina.
nypost.com
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
FDR like Trump and W was born into enormous wealth, and don’t care about the rights of the people. They have no strong convictions about anything other than attaining more power for themselves. Clinton, O, and Demented Joe while not being born into enormous wealth desperately wanted wealth, so they happily sold their souls to the billionaire class.True.
Lefties don't like those facts and truth though.
Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR | Mises Institute
Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often likened it to fascism. This was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as itsmises.org
FDR and Mussolini - Chronicles
Many Americans would be horrified at the thought of discussing Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Benito Mussolini as anything but moral and political antipodes:chroniclesmagazine.org
After all, there is a good reason why FDR did absolutely nothing when the Business Plot was revealed.
FDR had to bend to the people’s will to stay in office, thanks to nationwide movements. So he granted them a few crumbs, but likely that was too much for the billionaires to accept. So, the Business Plot might have been an effort to limit further benefits granted the lower classes. FDR probably told the billionaires not to worry, I’m one of you.
Excellent column by Unz on FDR, and as usual well documented and researched. As commonly occurs on so many historical leaders and events, nearly everything we were told about FDR in our school textbooks and media is utter bs.
American Pravda: President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression, and the New Deal
The First New Deal as American Fascism?
This actually relates to an important aspect of the NRA and several other major elements of the First New Deal enacted during FDR’s “Hundred Days,” considerations that were never mentioned in my introductory textbooks.For most of my life, I’d never paid much attention to FDR or his New Deal policies, so I’d 0nly had a vague and quite orthodox understanding of those issues.
I remember that decades ago, a friend of mine in graduate school had once told me that the New Deal was based upon fascism, and over the years I’d sometimes seen that same accusation made in various libertarian venues, but I’d always regarded it as nonsense of an utterly ridiculous type. After all, throughout all of Roosevelt’s terms in office, we continued to have free elections while none of FDR’s harshest critics were ever seized in raids by masked members of a secret police force and tortured at hidden prisons. So calling the Roosevelt Administration and its New Deal “fascistic” seemed like total lunacy.
But what I’d failed to appreciate was that the term “fascism” had undergone considerable evolution over time.
As one of our main enemies in World War II, Benito Mussolini and his fascist system had naturally been massively demonized as might be expected during a major war. But he had originally come to power through semi-legal means in 1922, and for most of the years after that, the Italian leader and his political system had often been viewed quite favorably by many or most Americans. During those years, “fascism” lacked any of its extremely pejorative later connotations, and instead was merely the name that Mussolini gave to the political and economic system that he had created. Fascism represented a new synthesis of capitalism and socialism, under which private businesses still existed but were required to operate under certain government guidelines and often as members of particular national cartels.
Mussolini himself had been one of the leaders of Italian socialism prior to the outbreak of the First World War, at which point he and so many other European socialists abandoned internationalism for fierce support of their own native countries. Indeed, Mussolini’s own family roots were strongly on the Left, and he had actually been named for the famous nineteenth century Mexican liberal leader Benito Juarez.
Communists naturally detested fascism, while many…
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,613
- 143,684
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #166
If you are citing Ron Unz, you have a problem. Everything is not the same. Fr example, Obamas presidency was hindered by Republican obstruction. Republican austerity measures slowed the economic recovery during his presidency. This is a quote from Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute: “The recovery since 2009 has been historically slow, and the disappointing pace can be explained almost entirely by the fiscal austerity imposed by the Republicans in Congress. To be blunt, if public spending since the Great Recession had followed the path it took during the recovery presided over by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, the U.S. economy would have been fully healed for years now.”FDR like Trump and W was born into enormous wealth, and don’t care about the rights of the people. They have no strong convictions about anything other than attaining more power for themselves. Clinton, O, and Demented Joe while not being born into enormous wealth desperately wanted wealth, so they happily sold their souls to the billionaire class.
FDR had to bend to the people’s will to stay in office, thanks to nationwide movements. So he granted them a few crumbs, but likely that was too much for the billionaires to accept. So, the Business Plot might have been an effort to limit further benefits granted the lower classes. FDR probably told the billionaires not to worry, I’m one of you.
Excellent column by Unz on FDR, and as usual well documented and researched. As commonly occurs on so many historical leaders and events, nearly everything we were told about FDR in our school textbooks and media is utter bs.
American Pravda: President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression, and the New Deal
The First New Deal as American Fascism?
This actually relates to an important aspect of the NRA and several other major elements of the First New Deal enacted during FDR’s “Hundred Days,” considerations that were never mentioned in my introductory textbooks.
For most of my life, I’d never paid much attention to FDR or his New Deal policies, so I’d 0nly had a vague and quite orthodox understanding of those issues.
I remember that decades ago, a friend of mine in graduate school had once told me that the New Deal was based upon fascism, and over the years I’d sometimes seen that same accusation made in various libertarian venues, but I’d always regarded it as nonsense of an utterly ridiculous type. After all, throughout all of Roosevelt’s terms in office, we continued to have free elections while none of FDR’s harshest critics were ever seized in raids by masked members of a secret police force and tortured at hidden prisons. So calling the Roosevelt Administration and its New Deal “fascistic” seemed like total lunacy.
But what I’d failed to appreciate was that the term “fascism” had undergone considerable evolution over time.
As one of our main enemies in World War II, Benito Mussolini and his fascist system had naturally been massively demonized as might be expected during a major war. But he had originally come to power through semi-legal means in 1922, and for most of the years after that, the Italian leader and his political system had often been viewed quite favorably by many or most Americans. During those years, “fascism” lacked any of its extremely pejorative later connotations, and instead was merely the name that Mussolini gave to the political and economic system that he had created. Fascism represented a new synthesis of capitalism and socialism, under which private businesses still existed but were required to operate under certain government guidelines and often as members of particular national cartels.
Mussolini himself had been one of the leaders of Italian socialism prior to the outbreak of the First World War, at which point he and so many other European socialists abandoned internationalism for fierce support of their own native countries. Indeed, Mussolini’s own family roots were strongly on the Left, and he had actually been named for the famous nineteenth century Mexican liberal leader Benito Juarez.
Communists naturally detested fascism, while many…
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 47,682
- 26,279
- 2,605
Republicans have been working on doing everything America's best President, FDR, did with The New Deal and all his other populist policies.FDR like Trump and W was born into enormous wealth, and don’t care about the rights of the people. They have no strong convictions about anything other than attaining more power for themselves. Clinton, O, and Demented Joe while not being born into enormous wealth desperately wanted wealth, so they happily sold their souls to the billionaire class.
FDR had to bend to the people’s will to stay in office, thanks to nationwide movements. So he granted them a few crumbs, but likely that was too much for the billionaires to accept. So, the Business Plot might have been an effort to limit further benefits granted the lower classes. FDR probably told the billionaires not to worry, I’m one of you.
Excellent column by Unz on FDR, and as usual well documented and researched. As commonly occurs on so many historical leaders and events, nearly everything we were told about FDR in our school textbooks and media is utter bs.
American Pravda: President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression, and the New Deal
The First New Deal as American Fascism?
This actually relates to an important aspect of the NRA and several other major elements of the First New Deal enacted during FDR’s “Hundred Days,” considerations that were never mentioned in my introductory textbooks.
For most of my life, I’d never paid much attention to FDR or his New Deal policies, so I’d 0nly had a vague and quite orthodox understanding of those issues.
I remember that decades ago, a friend of mine in graduate school had once told me that the New Deal was based upon fascism, and over the years I’d sometimes seen that same accusation made in various libertarian venues, but I’d always regarded it as nonsense of an utterly ridiculous type. After all, throughout all of Roosevelt’s terms in office, we continued to have free elections while none of FDR’s harshest critics were ever seized in raids by masked members of a secret police force and tortured at hidden prisons. So calling the Roosevelt Administration and its New Deal “fascistic” seemed like total lunacy.
But what I’d failed to appreciate was that the term “fascism” had undergone considerable evolution over time.
As one of our main enemies in World War II, Benito Mussolini and his fascist system had naturally been massively demonized as might be expected during a major war. But he had originally come to power through semi-legal means in 1922, and for most of the years after that, the Italian leader and his political system had often been viewed quite favorably by many or most Americans. During those years, “fascism” lacked any of its extremely pejorative later connotations, and instead was merely the name that Mussolini gave to the political and economic system that he had created. Fascism represented a new synthesis of capitalism and socialism, under which private businesses still existed but were required to operate under certain government guidelines and often as members of particular national cartels.
Mussolini himself had been one of the leaders of Italian socialism prior to the outbreak of the First World War, at which point he and so many other European socialists abandoned internationalism for fierce support of their own native countries. Indeed, Mussolini’s own family roots were strongly on the Left, and he had actually been named for the famous nineteenth century Mexican liberal leader Benito Juarez.
Communists naturally detested fascism, while many…
Looks like Trump may have been the final straw in that endeavor.
Time for a New Deal Redux.
This time for keeps!
Obama is a worst thing that could have happened to this country ..he set race relations in this country back in 50 years. For political reasons..he's a joke and fraud who ran against gay marriage but needed that gay money so he supported gay marriage.. ran around the Middle East apologizing for the United States as isis took over half of the place.. changed regimes in Libya which she had no business doing it's not far from being a field state Obama is a pathetic, lying, fraud ,joke
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
We’re not going to agree on FDR. I believe he was one of our worst presidents. He did do some good things for the people, but the bad far outweighed the good.
His ridiculous failed economic policies prolonged the GD and when he realized this would result in losing his next election, he proceeded on a course for war.
He was a psychopathic narcissist born with a silver spoon like Trump, and only cared about power.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
While my father and millions of Americans were starving during the GD, FDR was doing this…few Americans know of this. I wonder why?
Consider, for example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). This domestic allotment measure was championed by Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and vaguely described in my textbooks as a means of rescuing American farmers. By the time it was enacted in May 1933, the Great Depression was already three years old, and a substantial fraction of the entire American population had become totally impoverished, with many millions regularly going hungry.
Yet the policy proposed by the AAA was to pay and pressure farmers into destroying their livestock and crops, including slaughtering millions of little piglets and the sows who gave birth to them, with almost none of the meat being available for human consumption. For decades, farmers had always trained their mules to avoid trampling down crops, but they now forced the same mules to do exactly that, deliberately destroying food that could have fed a hungry nation. Delicious oranges were soaked with kerosene in order to prevent their possible consumption.
Offhand, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of another country that forced its farmers to destroy food supplies at a time of widespread national hunger, and if Maoist China or Stalinist Russia had ever done such a strange thing, it surely would have been endlessly cited as proof of the total insanity of Communism. Unsurprisingly, many of these early elements of the AAA were very unpopular with the American public. So wouldn’t it have made much more sense to instead buy all this food from farmers and then distribute it free of charge to those who were currently going hungry, or even just sell the surplus supplies overseas? Would the cost to the government have been so much greater?
American Pravda: President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression, and the New Deal
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
The similarities between Don and FDR are uncanny.
Prof. Raico’s introduction described some of these facts:
Roosevelt, who always viewed any criticism of himself as a perversion of true democracy, was outraged. The president of the United States wrote a personal letter to a magazine editor declaring that Flynn “should be barred hereafter from the columns of any presentable daily paper, monthly magazine, or national quarterly.” Whether or not as a consequence of FDR’s spite, the New Republic dropped the column by Flynn it had been publishing since 1933, a sign things were changing in the circles of left-liberalism. In the years to come, FDR would use the FBI, the IRS, and other agencies to spy on, harass, and intimidate his critics. This—and his lying, his constant lying—more than any putative mental affliction, explains the hatred that so many cherished for Franklin Roosevelt.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
So many similarities. Like the Biden crime family and now the Trump’s…
But Flynn’s claims were extremely precise, detailed, and specific, including numerous names, dates, and references. Most surprisingly, he accused the Roosevelts of exhibiting an extraordinary degree of familial financial corruption, which he claimed may have been unprecedented in American history. Apparently, despite his wealthy and elite background FDR’s eldest son Elliott never attended college and had essentially no professional qualifications in anything. But soon after FDR became president, he began soliciting large personal payments and “investments” from wealthy businessmen who needed favors from the massively growing federal government, and seemingly did so with FDR’s full knowledge and approval. The situation sounded a little like Billy Carter’s notorious activities during the late 1970s, but the money involved totaled as much as $50 million in present-day dollars relative to the household income of that era. I had never heard a word about this.
Even more shocking was the case of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who also had never attended college and apparently had little formal education of any sort. Soon after FDR was inaugurated, she began a major round of very well-paid personal advertising for corporate consumer products such as soap and took all sorts of other large payments over the next few years from various businesses, especially those crucially dependent upon government regulatory decisions. Imagine if recent First Ladies such as Michelle Obama or Laura Bush were constantly seen in TV ads hawking cars and diapers and fast food. The payments Eleanor personally received over the course of the FDR’s dozen years in office allegedly came to an astonishing $150 million, again relative to current family incomes. This, too, was something that I had never suspected. And all this was occurring during the very depths of the Great Depression, when a huge fraction of the country was desperately poor. Perhaps Juan and Eva Peron just didn’t hire the right PR people or simply aimed too low.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
It only gets worse…
Flynn noted that by the mid-1930s FDR’s various governmental schemes had failed to revive the American economy, while in 1937 a new economic collapse spiked unemployment back to the same levels as when the president had first entered office, confirming that harsh verdict of failure. Therefore, Flynn alleged that by late 1937, FDR had turned towards an aggressive foreign policy aimed at involving the country in a major foreign war, primarily because he believed that this was the only route out of his desperate economic and political box, a stratagem not unknown among national leaders throughout history. Indeed, in his January 5, 1938 New Republic column, Flynn had already alerted his disbelieving readers to the looming prospect of a large naval military build-up and warfare on the horizon after a top Roosevelt adviser had privately boasted to him that a large bout of “military Keynesianism” and a major foreign war would cure the country’s seemingly insurmountable economic problems. At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests, seemed the intended goal, but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that orchestrating a general war against Germany was the best course of action. Flynn fleshed out many of the additional details in his later 1948 book.
Flynn’s remarkable January 1938 prediction that Roosevelt planned to foment a major war for domestic political reasons seems fully confirmed by diplomatic disclosures, with memoirs and other historical documents obtained by later researchers revealing that FDR ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.
The last point is an important one since the confidential opinions of those closest to important historical events should be accorded considerable evidentiary weight. In a 2019 article John Wear mustered the numerous contemporaneous assessments that implicated FDR as a pivotal figure in orchestrating the world war by his constant pressure upon the British political leadership, a policy that he even privately admitted could mean his impeachment if revealed. Among other testimony, we have the statements of the Polish and British ambassadors to Washington and the American ambassador to London, who also passed along the concurring opinion of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain himself. Indeed, the German capture and publication of secret Polish diplomatic documents in 1939 had already revealed much of this information, and journalist William Henry Chamberlin confirmed their authenticity in his 1950 book. But since the mainstream media never reported any of these facts, they remain little known even today.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,613
- 143,684
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #175
While your father was not excluded from many FDR policies, mine was. There is no similarity between him and Trump except the racism. But when you cite Ron Unz, you are reciting a white supremacist and white supremacy is fascism.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,381
- 43,684
- 2,605
And worse….
Over the years, diplomatic historians have demonstrated that faced with such stubborn domestic opposition to direct military intervention in Europe, the Roosevelt Administration undertook a wide range of deeply hostile actions against Japan, directly intended to provoke an attack and thereby achieve a “back door to war” as Prof. Charles C. Tansill later entitled his important 1952 book on that history. These measures included a complete freeze on Japanese assets, an embargo on the oil absolutely vital to the Japanese military, and the summary rejection of the Japanese Prime Minister’s personal plea to hold top-level governmental negotiations aimed at maintaining peace. As early as May 1940, FDR had ordered the Pacific Fleet relocated from its San Diego home port to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, a decision strongly opposed as unnecessarily provocative and dangerous by its commanding admiral James Richardson, who was fired as a result.
Thus, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 actually marked the successful conclusion of Roosevelt’s diplomatic strategy by putting America into the war. Indeed, some scholars have even pointed to considerable evidence that the highest levels of the U.S. government were fully aware of the impending attack on our fleet at Pearl Harbor and allowed it to proceed. This was intended to ensure that sufficiently heavy American casualties would produce a vengeful nation united for war, thus sweeping aside all popular obstacles to our full-scale involvement in the global military conflict.
By 1941 the U.S. had broken all the Japanese diplomatic codes and was freely reading their secret communications, raising obvious questions about why our local commanders in Hawaii were not warned of the planned attack on their forces. Tansill and a former chief researcher for the Congressional investigating committee made this case in the 1953 Barnes volume, and the following year a former US admiral published The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, providing similar arguments at much greater length. This book also included an introduction by one of America’s highest-ranking World War II naval commanders, who fully endorsed the controversial theory.
In 2000, journalist Robert M. Stinnett published a wealth of additional supporting evidence, based upon his eight years of archival research. A telling point made by Stinnett was that if Washington had warned the Pearl Harbor commanders, their resulting defensive preparations would have been noticed by the local Japanese spies and relayed to the approaching task force; and with the element of surprise lost, the attack probably would have been aborted, thus frustrating all of FDR’s long-standing plans for war.
There was also a very strange domestic incident that immediately followed the Pearl Harbor attack, one that has attracted far too little attention. In that era, films were the most powerful popular media, and although Gentiles constituted 97% of the population, they controlled only one of the major studios; perhaps coincidentally, Walt Disney was also the only high-ranking Hollywood figure perched squarely within the anti-war camp. And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months. Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.
Pearl Harbor was bombed on a Sunday and unless FDR and his top aides were fully aware of the pending Japanese assault, they surely would have been totally preoccupied with the aftermath of the disaster. It seems highly unlikely that the U.S. military would have been ready to seize control of Disney studios early Monday morning following an actual “surprise” attack.
Over the years, diplomatic historians have demonstrated that faced with such stubborn domestic opposition to direct military intervention in Europe, the Roosevelt Administration undertook a wide range of deeply hostile actions against Japan, directly intended to provoke an attack and thereby achieve a “back door to war” as Prof. Charles C. Tansill later entitled his important 1952 book on that history. These measures included a complete freeze on Japanese assets, an embargo on the oil absolutely vital to the Japanese military, and the summary rejection of the Japanese Prime Minister’s personal plea to hold top-level governmental negotiations aimed at maintaining peace. As early as May 1940, FDR had ordered the Pacific Fleet relocated from its San Diego home port to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, a decision strongly opposed as unnecessarily provocative and dangerous by its commanding admiral James Richardson, who was fired as a result.
Thus, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 actually marked the successful conclusion of Roosevelt’s diplomatic strategy by putting America into the war. Indeed, some scholars have even pointed to considerable evidence that the highest levels of the U.S. government were fully aware of the impending attack on our fleet at Pearl Harbor and allowed it to proceed. This was intended to ensure that sufficiently heavy American casualties would produce a vengeful nation united for war, thus sweeping aside all popular obstacles to our full-scale involvement in the global military conflict.
By 1941 the U.S. had broken all the Japanese diplomatic codes and was freely reading their secret communications, raising obvious questions about why our local commanders in Hawaii were not warned of the planned attack on their forces. Tansill and a former chief researcher for the Congressional investigating committee made this case in the 1953 Barnes volume, and the following year a former US admiral published The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, providing similar arguments at much greater length. This book also included an introduction by one of America’s highest-ranking World War II naval commanders, who fully endorsed the controversial theory.
In 2000, journalist Robert M. Stinnett published a wealth of additional supporting evidence, based upon his eight years of archival research. A telling point made by Stinnett was that if Washington had warned the Pearl Harbor commanders, their resulting defensive preparations would have been noticed by the local Japanese spies and relayed to the approaching task force; and with the element of surprise lost, the attack probably would have been aborted, thus frustrating all of FDR’s long-standing plans for war.
There was also a very strange domestic incident that immediately followed the Pearl Harbor attack, one that has attracted far too little attention. In that era, films were the most powerful popular media, and although Gentiles constituted 97% of the population, they controlled only one of the major studios; perhaps coincidentally, Walt Disney was also the only high-ranking Hollywood figure perched squarely within the anti-war camp. And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months. Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.
Pearl Harbor was bombed on a Sunday and unless FDR and his top aides were fully aware of the pending Japanese assault, they surely would have been totally preoccupied with the aftermath of the disaster. It seems highly unlikely that the U.S. military would have been ready to seize control of Disney studios early Monday morning following an actual “surprise” attack.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,613
- 143,684
- 3,645
- Thread starter
- #178
Every word you posted was racist white bullshit. Obama didn't set anything back because race relations were bad long before he took office. What happened was that you racists lost your minds. Libya was a French-led mission. Obama killed Bin Laden and destroyed ISIS. Bush is why ISIS started. Trump apologized to Putin for 4 years.
Barack Obama did the hard work of rebuilding an economy that was at an historic low. It has been said that Obama inherited the worst economy since FDR. During his 8 years he rebuilt it even with obstruction from Republicans on a consistent basis. In February of 2009, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the growth period from this policy began in July 2009 and continued through January 2020. People gave Trump credit for economic growth that began 8 years before he took office.
Obama rebuilt the economy and created a record decade of growth, even with Republican obstruction and austerity policies that actually slowed down economic growth. Despite the opposition, Obama set a record for job growth that began in 2010, 7 years before Trump took office and lasted until 2019, which was Trumps third year. That's what Obama did, so like I said, your post I BS.
Obama did ? the guy who never created a job in his life , who never ran anything in his life who ran on bringing people together but separated people by race gender and sexual orientation for political purposes? .youre delusional. Obama is the only president in American history who never reached 3% GDP growth during his term he came and coming off the housing bubble created by the liberal stupidity of giving loans to everybody no matter if they could repay them , afford them, we had so many houses in these neighborhoods abandoned because people and spent too much money on them and people who should never gotten a mortgage in the first place. Because the government backed them there was no risk for the banks.. Obama created isis with a stupidity.... Obama did regime change in Libya not the French idiot your hero worship is a your joke ..when an economy is covering from a housing crash the only way I can go is up.... Obamacare is a disaster cost medical costs when way up ... Obama tried to kiss Putin's ass didn't work crimea was taken during his administration
[
How Obama Caused ISIS | National Review
The Syria policy of the Obama administration is the main reason for the growth of the Islamic State (or ISIS) – and with it, for the current crisis in Iraq, and for a greatly increased danger of t…
www.nationalreview.com
Last edited:
You're supposed to post some links to your copy and pasteAnd worse….
Over the years, diplomatic historians have demonstrated that faced with such stubborn domestic opposition to direct military intervention in Europe, the Roosevelt Administration undertook a wide range of deeply hostile actions against Japan, directly intended to provoke an attack and thereby achieve a “back door to war” as Prof. Charles C. Tansill later entitled his important 1952 book on that history. These measures included a complete freeze on Japanese assets, an embargo on the oil absolutely vital to the Japanese military, and the summary rejection of the Japanese Prime Minister’s personal plea to hold top-level governmental negotiations aimed at maintaining peace. As early as May 1940, FDR had ordered the Pacific Fleet relocated from its San Diego home port to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, a decision strongly opposed as unnecessarily provocative and dangerous by its commanding admiral James Richardson, who was fired as a result.
Thus, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 actually marked the successful conclusion of Roosevelt’s diplomatic strategy by putting America into the war. Indeed, some scholars have even pointed to considerable evidence that the highest levels of the U.S. government were fully aware of the impending attack on our fleet at Pearl Harbor and allowed it to proceed. This was intended to ensure that sufficiently heavy American casualties would produce a vengeful nation united for war, thus sweeping aside all popular obstacles to our full-scale involvement in the global military conflict.
By 1941 the U.S. had broken all the Japanese diplomatic codes and was freely reading their secret communications, raising obvious questions about why our local commanders in Hawaii were not warned of the planned attack on their forces. Tansill and a former chief researcher for the Congressional investigating committee made this case in the 1953 Barnes volume, and the following year a former US admiral published The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, providing similar arguments at much greater length. This book also included an introduction by one of America’s highest-ranking World War II naval commanders, who fully endorsed the controversial theory.
In 2000, journalist Robert M. Stinnett published a wealth of additional supporting evidence, based upon his eight years of archival research. A telling point made by Stinnett was that if Washington had warned the Pearl Harbor commanders, their resulting defensive preparations would have been noticed by the local Japanese spies and relayed to the approaching task force; and with the element of surprise lost, the attack probably would have been aborted, thus frustrating all of FDR’s long-standing plans for war.
There was also a very strange domestic incident that immediately followed the Pearl Harbor attack, one that has attracted far too little attention. In that era, films were the most powerful popular media, and although Gentiles constituted 97% of the population, they controlled only one of the major studios; perhaps coincidentally, Walt Disney was also the only high-ranking Hollywood figure perched squarely within the anti-war camp. And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months. Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.
Pearl Harbor was bombed on a Sunday and unless FDR and his top aides were fully aware of the pending Japanese assault, they surely would have been totally preoccupied with the aftermath of the disaster. It seems highly unlikely that the U.S. military would have been ready to seize control of Disney studios early Monday morning following an actual “surprise” attack.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Meteorologist makes rare admission about forecast that shut down DC- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
-
There's a case to be made that inexperience and ignorance lead us to war.- Started by berg80
- Replies: 16
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
There's a case to be made that inexperience and ignorance lead us to war.- Latest: BasicHumanUnit
