AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Setanta wrote:

. Mr. Roosevelt took office in 1933, before Hitler came to power, and when the exact nature of the activities of Stalin and the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union were as yet unknown.
***************************************************************
That is incorrect. 1929( before FDR) Stalin began a new wave of terror sending thousands to the Gulags. But FDR's braintrust were fellow travelers. Most of them were strong left wingers. One, to become Illinois Senator was an exception.

Paul Douglas had seen the Soviets at work. A group of Soviet bank clerks were tried at four o"clock in the afternoon and executed at six.

And, who were the individuals who endorsed the Soviet miracle?

Geroge Counts--a disciple of John Dewey( enough said)

Robert Dunn- from the ACLU

Roger Baldwin!!!!! the founder of the ACLU

Lincoln Steffens--So far left he was off the charts.


Not only was Roosevelt not informed about the Soviet Union, he was led by the fellow travelers to view it as almost benevolent.

Setanta wrote:

-Henry Ford was willing to work with them, as well as Armand Hammer. There was a vague theory of industrial production known as Fordism. I say vague because even Ford himself was full of contradictions. He was willing to hire armed goons to deal with sit-in strikers, and to hire scabs to break strikes. At the same time, his was the idea to make affordable automobiles that his factory workers could afford, and to pave vast parking lots next to his plants. His was a paternalistic attitude reminiscent of that of the owners of big mills in the New England and "old" England in the 19th century--opposed to organized labor but fancying themselves as the stern fathers of vast families of wayward children (rather than grown men and women entitled to have their own opinions on what constituted a living wage and decent working conditions).
************************************************************




I don't know where Setanta got the idea that Ford was willing to work with the Soviets. But his writings EVEN BEFORE HITLER, show that he was anti-Soviet.

Note:

prior to Hitler, Ford made the stereotypical amalgam between the Jews, the Russian Revolution and the labor movement. In the Independent, the Soviet Union was referred to as “the present Jewish government of Russia.”[12]

“There are more Communists in the United States than there are in Soviet Russia. Their aim is the same and their racial character is the same.... The power house of Communist influence and propaganda in the United States is in the Jewish trade unions which, almost without exception, adhere to a Bolshevik program for the respective industries and for the country as a whole” stated the Protocols, the Dearborn Independent and The International Jew.
***************************************************************

Perhaps Setanta needs t0 reread his History. As a matter of fact, Setanta has made many quite avoidable errors in the past. This is why he fears me. He knows I will check on his alleged facts and show were he is mistaken.

Setanta wrote:

So references to Bolshevism and to the Soviet Union did not then evoke the horror that they later would do. No one then knew about Stalin's deportation of the Kulaks. Contrary to right-wing propaganda, for as bad as it was, it did not result in the deaths of millions--probably about 400,000 died, mostly of famine.
*************************************************************
I don't think that Setanta has ever read--Alexander Solzhenitsyn's indictment of the Soviet killers-in The Gulag Archipelago.

Setanta tosses off the number( source?) 400,000. Only a mere 400,000.

Solshenitzen writes:

"The MULTIMILLION WAVE of dispossessed Kulaks... was nothing less than a tidal wave which cannot be compared to anything in Russian history. They took the head of the family first..and then they watched to make sure that none of the children--fourteen--ten, even six years old. Many of these ended up in the gulag if they had not starved to death before then."

Setanta wrote:

although no one in 1933 would have characterized Roosevelt's programs as fascistic. After all, those people understood that fascism was a right-wing ideology (pacem Okie),

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

But this is nonsense. How could fascism be a right-wing ideology when Hitler was espousing left wing values? The Catholic church was certainly right-wing and conservative.

Hitler said "It's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of Science."

I can name twenty left wingers that would say the same thing in the USA.
So Hitler' fascism espoused right wing values?

That view does not hold up when the evidence is viewed.

Hitler's party platform had a concerted appeal to Socialistic and Pupulist economics

such as

a. Abolition of income from interest--no right winger would touch this but
left wingers love it.

b.the total confiscation of war profits--a hard left wing demand.

c. The nationalization of trusts- Can you say left wing Obama?

d. Shared profits with labor---GM, where are you--a left wing not a right wing
initiative

e. the expropriation of land without compensation---We have to protect the
del beetle bug--no right
winger would touch this

f. the expansion of health services under government control.

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

The Nazi Party platform doubtlessly inspired the American left--NOT THE RIGHT. The Nazi Party's FASCISM PROCEEDS FROM THE LEFT NOT THE RIGHT.

Setanta wrote:

Ican's hysteria and fulminations against Mr. Obama are over the top, and based in no reality. But his complaints would be nearer the mark if applied to the younger Mr. Roosevelt. (Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., although considered a "radical" by other Republicans, was a Republican, and not a Democrat as Fox once claimed--his younger cousin, Franklin, was, of course a Democrat.) I find it hilarious that people call Mr. Obama a socialist and claim his is the most leftist administration in American history. The palm for that goes to Mr. Roosevelt the younger. But the Congress of 1933 would have signed on to almost anything that Roosevelt came up with in the despair of the times. His NRA (National Recovery Administration) and his WPA (Works Progress Administration) were far closer to Ican's hysteria about the transfer of wealth. The NRA was struck down by the Court in 1935, and in 1936, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Roosevelt's Agricultural Adjustment Act was funded by an unconstitutional tax, and New Dealers began to fear for the WPA, the TVA and Social Security. Personally, i consider that the enabling legislation was at fault, but there can be no doubt that courts, following the lead of the Supremes, became more conservative in their rulings, much to the relief of business men, who felt that they were being robbed to fund a welfare state. Roosevelt then peed in his own Wheaties with his entirely unconstitutional "court packing plan," which not only failed miserably, but which alienated much of the public who had theretofore supported his programs.
************************************************************

Let's take that apart. It is filled with half-truths, exaggerations and errors.

First of all, Setanta says he finds it HILARIOUS that some consider Obama to be a Socialist.

Setanta is easily amused.

There are some who do not agree-Note:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Obama a socialist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.

For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot.

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries


The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform.

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free enterprise, capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady diet of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other "feel good" slogans.

Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, "it's good for everybody." They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.

Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.

Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.

Roosevelt more Socialistic than Obama? Not if you read the evidence.

Obama Attacks Teddy Roosevelt
August 2, 2007 - 4:48am
By Bill McMorris
Tags: Borderline Inappropriate, CornellSun.com Exclusive
Barack Obama’s campaign took a surprising turn yesterday as the presidential hopeful used an Iowa campaign stop to smear the reputation of former president Theodore Roosevelt. The freshmen senator from Illinois accused the Bush administration of creating a “second gilded age” by favoring the wealthy over working families.

Obama is of course referring to the late nineteenth-early twentieth century Gilded Age where rich industrialists preyed on the poor. As president, Roosevelt initiated the trust busting movement that broke up various corporations, who had seized monopolistic positions in the business market. Obama’s campaign has vowed to also take on large corporations and unfair marketplaces once elected into office.

There is, however, a large difference between the actions of Theodore Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Namely, Roosevelt’s anti-monopoly reform was rooted in capitalism"Obama’s campaign stinks of socialism.

Roosevelt broke up enormous trusts in order to encourage competition in the market. Roosevelt did not place an unequal burden on the moneyed class with the aim of discouraging wealth; rather, his legislation aimed at creating a larger moneyed class by enabling others to enter the capitalistic business market.

Obama’s plans of redistribution are the antithesis of Roosevelt’s reforms. After all, it is impossible for a government program to create wealth"it can only take money away from some and give it to another. If anyone in the business world did what Obama plans to do, it would be called embezzlement. The inevitable result of Obama’s taxation plans is a statist monopoly, in which the government, rather than a corporate trust, decides who will suffer and who will profit in society.

Such policies are destined to fail (e.g. Jimmy Carter’s entire economy, Hitlery Clinton’s Healthcare, etc.) and Obama’s will be no different. If George Bush heralded a second Gilded Age, then Obama will surely follow with a second Great Depression.
*****************************************************************

AGAIN, OBAMA'S PLANS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF ROOSEVELT'S REFORMS.

But, Setanta either does not know that or is deliberatly twisting the truth.

What are these letters written down by Setanta that we are supposed to understand? Why doesn't he write down the entire title?

Note:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei , abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier Ger. sozi, popular abbreviation of "sozialist")[1], was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.

The party's last leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich.


The National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.

SOCIALIST? Yes--Left wing BOTH in name and IN POLICIES--NOTE:

T he SS chief, Heinrich Himmler, was convinced that the anti-witch craze was an anti-German plot concocted by the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church in Germany and, a fortiori, in Rome, was right wing and conservative.

Exactly--and the Nazi policies were left wing and Socialist.

Note: It is clear that the Nazis were not "pro-life". Long before the final solution, the Nazis cast the aged, the infirm, and the handicapped upon the proverbial Spartan Hillside. This is not conservative--this is left wing.

Note: Nazi attitudes toward sex were not conservative or right wing. They were definitely left wing

Hitler, in "Table Talk" said--"Marriage as it is practiced in bourgeoise society, is generally a thing against Nature. But a meeting between two beings who compliment one another, who are made for one another, borders already, in my conception, upon a miracle."

That is not a right wing posture. It is definitely left wing!!!

Mr. Parados- You are being ingenious when you wrote:
quote
It is particularly enlightening on this page when one Conservative argues that Nazis were socialists simply because they used the word to describe themselves. That is in contrast to Fox who argues Bush and many other politicians are not conservatives even though they personally use the label.
end of quote
I did not argue that the Nazis were socialists SIMPLY because they used the word to describe themselves. In that same post and in six previous posts, I gave other evidence to show that the Nazis were left wing Socialists. One of the arguments you must have missed is the fact that the Nazis were strongly opposed to a iconic and recognized center of right wing conservatism--the Catholic Church. I quoted Hitler himself. May I suggest that you go back to read all of my posts in which I critique Setanta's posts. I also invite you to look at the posts coming up since I have not finished showing that Setanta is in error in labeling the Nazis as right-wing instead of being left wing socialists.

Setanta wrote:

Anyone familiar with the history of socialism will known that nationalism and ethnocentrism are anathema to socialist and Marxist principles--and this is one of the reasons that Okie is so deluded.

end of quote

Setanta is in error.

The Nazis campaigned as Socialists. They were also nationalists which in the context of the 1930's was considered a "rightist" position BUT THIS WAS AT A TIME WHEN THE 'INTERNATIONALISM' OF THE SOVIET UNION DEFINED ALL, ALL, ALL, NATIONALISTS AS RIGHT WING.

Nationalism isn't necessarily all right wing.

Was Stalin right wing?
WAs Arafat right wing?
Was PolPot right wing?
Was Castro rigth wing?

Unless we are prepared to call these people right wing, we can see that nationalism is not all right wing.

Stalin himself dubbed himself a NATIONALIST!

The French Revolution was a nationalist revolution but it was also seen as a left liberal one FOR BREAKING WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

And, even if the Nazi Nationalism was in some ill=defined but fundamental way right wing, this only meant that Nazism was RIGHT WING SOCIALISM.

AND RIGHT WING SOCIALISTS ARE STILL SOCIALISTS.

In his book, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, Richard Pipes wrote:

"Bolshevism and Fascism are heresies of socialism. Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses. Communists champion class, Nazis race, Fascists--the nation. All such ideologies attract the same kind of people"

Setanta wrote:

There is absolutely no basis of which i know to claim that Mr. Roosevelt believed in political totalitarianism. And that covers the core principles of the NSDAP's 25 points.
end of quote
But as Roosevelt himself said( according to Harold Ickes( his interior secretary and one of his most important advisors) 'What we were doing in this country were some of the things...that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way"

The German Press was especially lavish in its praise fo FDR. In 1934 "The Volkischer Beobachter"-THE NAZI PARTY'S OFFICIAL NEWPAPER, wrote that Roosevelt, through his New Deal, had eliminated "the uninhibited frenzy of market speculation" of the previous decade by adopting 'NATIONAL SOCIALIST STRAINS OF THOUGHT IN HIS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICIES"

Setanta wrote:

Now, Mr. Morrison, i've answered your question. Will you do me the courtesy of answering my two questions, in light of my response?

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

What a pusillanimous hypocrite!!!! He expects an answer while he gives none????

Why the distinction? The second amendment doesn't say "firearms," it says "arms." How can you justify a distinction given the text of the amendment?


But "radio" and "television" aren't mentioned in the first amendment. Only the "press" is mentioned. Under what theory of constitutional interpretation do you justify including television and radio in the definition of "press?"


Let's say the government, without a warrant, attaches an electronic listening device to the wall of a public telephone booth in order to listen to a criminal suspect making calls therein. Is that a violation of the fourth amendment?


Well, at least now I understand why the Republicans were so opposed to a supreme court nominee who could express "empathy."

Well, as the quadruple amputee once said, "I'm stumped."

OBAMA IS A CRIMINAL! HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE CRIMES BEFORE HE DESTROYS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

(1) Obama is transfering wealth from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.
(2) Obama is trying to deny corporate bond holders of bankrupt corporations their full equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees.
(3) Obama is refusing to allow many corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans before he permits them to.
(4) Obama is forcing selected car dealers to close their businesses.
Quote:

Are "we more disposed to suffer, while [Obama's] CRIMES are sufferable, than to RECTIFY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT by removing Obama from office, while the cost to accomplish that objective remains relatively low?

ICAN IS AN IDIOT! HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE IDIOCIES BEFORE WE LOSE FAITH IN HIS BRILLIANT CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.

HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, or remove him in a special election. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution (see Amendment X). Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship. Or, we have to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to permit more than half the state legislatures to call for a special election of President and Congress.

'Twas tongue in cheek.

ICAN IS AN ILLEGAL RECIPIENT OF STOLEN GOODS. HE MUST BE CONVICTED IMMEDIATELY AND SENT TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE, BECAUSE HE IS SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZING THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY AND ITS CONSTITUTION BY HIS ACTIONS.

Ican in a previous post said he talked to teabaggers "here in Texas", from which we may assume he is Texan. Texas, like most red states, receives more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes. That money comes from the pockets of blue staters, who pay more than they get back. Ican says this transfer of money from those who have rightfully earned it to those who have not (e.g. Texans), is theft. That makes the entire state of Texas, notably including ican, who is most vocal about its illegality, complicit in thievery. Receiving stolen property is a crime, ican, and you are a common criminal. Since by his own standards he is guilty, he should be made an example of, as a deterrent to others who commit the same crime. ican must be sent to a maximum security penitentiary immediately.

Ican wrote:


Previous • Post: # 3,676,374 • Next ican711nm

0 Reply report Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:33 pm Re: JTT (Post 3676362)
Quote:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article II Section 1. The President …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, or remove him in a special election. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution (see Amendment X). Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship. Or, we have to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to permit more than half the state legislature to call for a special session of Congress.