The Hard Truth

Journal of Political News & Constitutionalism

Archive for the ‘franklin roosevelt’ Category

Communist Party USA: Obama working to nationalize U.S. economy

leave a comment »

Posted: February 08, 2009
7:30 pm Eastern

 

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

 

President Obama is “considering” a radical agenda to nationalize the U.S. financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and other sectors whose future is “problematic” in private hands, claims the leader of the Communist Party USA.
 
In a major speech focused on Obama titled “Off and running: Opportunity of a lifetime,” CPUSA leader Sam Webb also alleges Obama’s administration is considering turning education, childcare, and health care into “no profit zones;” rerouting investment capital from military infrastructure to “green economy” projects and public infrastructure; and waging a “full scale” assault on global warming.
 
“We now have not simply a friend, but a people’s advocate in the White House,” declared Webb at a recent speech in Ohio for People’s Weekly World Communist newspaper.
 
“An era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House,” Webb proclaimed.

He stated Obama and the “broad coalition that supports him will almost inevitably have to consider – and they already are – the following measures:

  • Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives.
  • Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.
  • Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs – something that the New Deal never accomplished.
  • Strengthening of union rights in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.
  • Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working class interests.
  • Equality in conditions of life for racially minorities and women.
  • Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands.
  • Turning education, child care, and health care into “no profit” zones.
  • Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.
  • Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations on the one hand and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace on the other.
  • Full scale assault on global warming.
  • Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries that are locked in poverty and misery.”

Webb lauded Obama’s  $800-plus billion so-called stimulus package as “a good bill that will ease the pain of this crisis, create jobs, and begin to reflate the economy.”
 
He explained labor unions, which he said were instrumental in Obama’s election, must work to keep the White House in check by “exercis[ing] an enormous influence on the political process. Never before has a coalition with such breadth walked on the political stage of our country,” he said.
 
Indeed, in an article just after last November’s election titled, “Special Interest or Class Consciousness? How Labor Put Obama in the White House,” Political Affairs reported on polling data released that revealed the extent of union support for Obama.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members.

According to the survey , Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins. 

Advertisements

Obama Targets Talk Radio to Silence Opposition

with 2 comments

Posted: January 26, 2009
8:29 pm Eastern

 

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

The White House is promising new reviews of the “obligations” to the government by broadcasters who “occupy the nation’s spectrum” just as the president has targeted conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh for a public attack, raising concerns over the possible restoration of the “Fairness Doctrine,” a policy that failed as unneeded and unconstitutional two decades ago.

Paul Ibrahim of NorthStarWriters.com cited Obama’s warning to congressional Republicans that “you can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done” in suggesting the president has become the “driving force” because a new “systematic” plan to “intimidate and demonize Obama’s opponents.”

That such a campaign was launched only days after Obama’s inauguration is “tremendously perturbing,” he wrote.

“Welcome to the politics of hope ‘n’ change. Obama’s startling attempt to hang Limbaugh’s scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it,” Ibrahim wrote.

On Obama’s agenda, according to his White House website, is the goal to “encourage diversity in media ownership.”

Obama elaborates on the site that his aim is to “encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

The plan apparently aligns with longstanding Democratic suggestions to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine.”

The policy was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan when there were 75 radio talk shows in the U.S. Reagan opposed the policy because it required broadcast TV and radio programs to air “opposing views” on political issues, which had the practical effect of virtually eliminating opinion programs.

 

Since abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, the number of radio talk shows has risen to more than 3,000.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah long has warned about Democrats’ plans to revive restrictions on the airwaves.

“If the Democrats and their me-too Republican allies are successful at sacking talk radio, there will be no stopping them,” Farah warned. “Broadcast will be first. Then they will go after the Internet with taxes and new regulations and hate-crimes laws. And when they succeed at muzzling dissenting voices there, they will even turn to print. Remember, we are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here.”

Many fear the Fairness Doctrine would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

During the presidential campaign, spokesman Michael Ortiz  indicated Obama thought the debate was “a distraction.”

But author Brad O’Leary examined Obama’s legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

“Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of [his] campaign,” said O’Leary. “His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a “Fairness” policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, “I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Ibrahim noted the president’s public verbal condemnation of Limbaugh makes clear his “rejection” of the old “Bush” politics.

“You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as ‘unpatriotic’ for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their ‘new’ politics,” he wrote.

The National Review’s Byron York said Obama’s criticism of Limbaugh makes it appear he considers the talk host “the true leader of the Republican opposition.”

York said Limbaugh responded that Obama was trying to make the arguments about the radio show instead of Obama’s actual plans.

“To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective,” Limbaugh told York. “Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

“I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing ‘eternal’ power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy,” Limbaugh continued. “If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.”

Limbaugh added: “One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'”

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review’s “The Corner” blog, noted that attorney general nominee Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing to Fairness Doctrine.

Obama’s choice to head his FCC transition team, Democrat Henry Rivera, added to fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine might return to silence conservative talk radio.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post “Meet Talk’s Executioner” he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, “is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama’s tenure in office.”

Congressman Wants to Amend Constitution to Remove Presidential Term Limits

with 4 comments

Posted: January 16, 2009
11:40 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 


Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill’s language, proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

In the past, some presidents have been critical of the 22nd Amendment, including Eisenhower, Clinton and Reagan.

In 1807 Thomas Jefferson, however, warned that presidents not bound by term limits could use their popularity and power to become kings.

“If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice,” Jefferson wrote to the Legislature of Vermont, “his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

 Presidential term limits, however, were not “fixed by the Constitution” until ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Congress passed the Amendment on March 21, 1947, shortly after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first and only president to be elected to more than two terms – in Roosevelt’s case, four. The Amendment was ratified by the required number of states on Feb. 26, 1951.

The 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate.

In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures.

H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose. A similar resolution, H.J. Res. 25, was also proposed the same year and received co-sponsorship from a bipartisan group of six other representatives. In 1987, during Reagan’s term of office, Earl Michener, R-Mich., also proposed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

At the current time, H.J. Res. 5 has not tallied any cosponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office.

Thomas Jefferson, who became the second vice president of the U.S. after Washington declined to run for a third term and who then later became the third president, not only affirmed following the Washington’s example, but also foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment.

“General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”

In the same letter to the Legislature of Vermont where he warned of a presidential monarchy, Jefferson further explained why he refused to run for a third term.

“Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind,” Jefferson wrote, “I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office.”

WND attempted to contact Rep. Serrano about his reasons and argument for repeal of the 22nd Amendment, but phone calls to his communications director were not returned.

Written by bkl1

January 19, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Obama Reincarnation of Roosevelt?

with 2 comments

By Brian K. Lutes

It is The Hard Truth that Barack Obama apparently fancies himself as the reincarnation of Franklin Roosevelt.

I watched Obama’s speech about our current “economic crisis” from the Senate yesterday recognizing that his whole presentation just dripped with socialism, but then he put the cherry on top and invoked the god of American socialism, Franklin Roosevelt.

The fact that so many people don’t seem to recognize the socialist bent that is Obama shows just how successful the people who set out back in the 1930s to remake our Constitutional Republic with a government of limited powers and individual responsibility into a social democracy where the “citizens” look to government for the very air they breathe have been.

Like most everyone that took to the microphone in the Senate, Obama stressed that if the “bailout” wasn’t approved it was likely that the sun wouldn’t come out. But then he went one step further and brought up Roosevelt, a move that will probably secure him 99% of the vote in Fayette County, PA, where I grew up.

The messiah that is Obama quoted FDR as saying in his first “fireside chat”: There are elements of our financial system that are more important than currency and even gold; Those elements are confidence & courage. Confidence & courage are “essential in carrying out our plan”. He then intimated that we, the people, must be made to have confidence & courage in this plan which is not much different than FDR’s plan which in many ways is why we are in this situation.

“Essential in carrying out our plan”? The plan was to begin the transformation of our capitalist economic system into a socialist system in which government would have it’s filthy fingers in every-body’s pies. It worked and is still working.

First, it must be noted that FDR himself said: “Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens, you can damn well bet it was meant to happen”. Probably the only truthful thing he ever said and yet nobody I’ve met has heard it.

Following the “great depression” which was intentionally created, FDR oversaw the creation of a multitude of new federal agencies and expanded the reach of government to unprecedented levels. Possibly the most famous Roosevelt agency was the “Works Progress Administration” (WPA). This agency gathered up the unemployed, gave them uniforms, and “paid” them to build roads, bridges, parks, dams, etc. The WPA also undertook a massive propaganda campaign to tell the American people how great the program was and that without it many of them wouldn’t have a job.

This propaganda campaign was wildly successful and completely fooled most people into never asking where the money for their jobs was coming from. They never realized that they were dogs chasing their own tails. In essence they were paying themselves and never getting ahead. It was socialism plain and simple and if you were listed as a Roosevelt opponent in political circles you were flat out of luck.

There were Americans who recognized what was going on and challenged the constitutionality of Roosevelt’s agencies in court and many of them were declared to be unconstitutional by the courts. This caused Roosevelt to try to change the makeup of the US Supreme Court by trying to get the Congress to give him the power to “pack the court”. By “packing the court” it is meant that FDR wanted the authority to appoint enough additional justices to the court that he would have enough votes on the court to outvote the justices that had declared his agencies to be illegal. The fact that his agencies were declared to be illegal and in violation of the constitution he swore to uphold didn’t faze him a bit or make him realize that what he was doing was wrong. It made him angry and wanted to circumvent the court and thereby the constitution.

Prior to invoking Roosevelt by name Obama invoked FDR in spirit with talk of “creating millions of jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges, and our electric grids”. An Obama Works Progress Administration?

 

We did not get into this mess by the natural progression of things. Capitalism is not responsible despite our handlers saying it is. Lax enforcement of regulations in the banking industry is not responsible. The very people coming to our rescue and yes, FDR, are responsible to a large extent. But the ultimate responsibility belongs to us, the people.

We are responsible because we stopped paying attention to what our employees in Washington were doing. We allowed ourselves to become ignorant of our Constitutions and the principles on which our founding fathers established these United States. We allowed ourselves to get comfortable with the idea that our government will always save us no matter what stupid things we do.

This current “crisis” was created by the socialist programs that Obama, following FDR’s guide, and his fellow Senators like Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, an open sodomite, pushed on banks to force them to give home loans to people who didn’t qualify for them through the language of the 1977 “Community Reinvestment Act”. The act basically forces banks and other lenders to loan money to people they normally would not or face being drug into court under the charge of racism and discrimination.

When the banks still hesitated the government, again in the spirit of FDR, created two government corporations, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, to “guarantee” the loans the same government insisted be made to people who were not qualified. This tells me that the government knew a large percentage of people were going to default on the loans and they did. Now, this has all come crashing down as socialism always does.

Obama is not the reincarnation of Roosevelt. He is much, much worse.