When Democrat Hero FDR Confiscated American Citizens’ Gold — At The Point Of A Gun


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


Hat/Tip to Nick Sorrentino at Doug Ross @ Journal.

He was instrumental in the Allied victories in WWII, but his economic policies were disastrous. A little tidbit that is all but forgotten is the fact that Roosevelt forced all Americans to turn in their gold, or else.

FDR, the man who studied Mussolini, who birthed the current intrusive state, who started the drug war in earnest, who put Japanese Americans into concentration camps, who extended the Depression years longer than it needed to be and thereby contributed to the genesis of the Second World War, who tried to pack the Supreme Court, who gave away half of Europe to the Soviets at Yalta, and who confiscated the gold – the real wealth – of the American people.

What a guy. And he still has his face on the dime.


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Just imagine the uproar if Obama did such a thing. But hey, I mean he compares himself to FDR all the time, so maybe we ought to all hide our gold now, while we can…

There is a reason why my grandmother, a good New York City Irish catholic despised the man. She thought Roosevelt was a hair’s breadth short of being a dictator.

She was probably being nice.

Watch the video:




The Grinch Who Moved Thanksgiving


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.



Over the river and through the wood, to Grandfather’s house we go…Ah, Thanksgiving, our loveliest secular holiday. Even the Masters of War can’t dislodge it – though FDR tried his damndest.

George Washington issued the first National Thanksgiving Proclamation on November 26, 1789, but the early presidents, disproportionately Virginian and of a states’ rights disposition, regarded such proclamations as excessively Yankee and Federalist. Even John Quincy Adams, the ultimate codfish President, was reluctant to be seen as “introducing New England manners” by a public acknowledgement of Thanksgiving.

The antebellum New England novelist and editor Sarah Josepha Hale is to Thanksgiving what Stevie Wonder is to Martin Luther King Day. The indefatigable Hale propagandized ceaselessly for the glory of late November Thursdays, pumpkin pie, roasted turkey, “savory stuffing”—everything but the Detroit Lions. It took 35 years and a civil war, but Mrs. Hale’s efforts paid off when President Lincoln declared the last Thursday in November a national day of Thanksgiving and a legal holiday.

Andrew Johnson, ever the contrarian, designated his first Thanksgiving Day in December, but his successor, Ulysses Grant, began a 70-year practice of setting the date on the last Thursday in November. The states were free to go their own ways, and Southern governors often opted for idiosyncratic observances or none at all. As Thanksgiving historian Diana Karter Applebaum notes, Texas Governor Oran Milo Roberts refused to declare Thanksgiving in the Lone Star State, sneering, “It’s a damned Yankee institution anyway.” But the South, too, eventually succumbed to this succulent and sacred day.

Then along came Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It seems that in 1939 Thanksgiving was to fall on November 30th, a matter of consternation to the big merchants of the National Retail Dry Goods Association (NRDGA). The presidents of Gimbel Brothers, Lord & Taylor, and other unsentimental vendors petitioned President Roosevelt to move Thanksgiving to the previous Thursday, November 23, thus creating an additional week of Christmas shopping—and to the astonishment of those Americans without dollar signs in their eyes, the President did so. (Not all merchants favored the shift. One Kokomo shopkeeper hung a sign in his window reading, “Do your shopping now. Who knows, tomorrow may be Christmas.”)

Opinion polls revealed that more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the Rooseveltian ukase; dissent was especially vigorous in New England. The selectmen of Plymouth, Massachusetts informed the President, “It is a religious holiday and [you] have no right to change it for commercial reasons.” Thanksgiving is a day to give thanks to the Almighty, harrumphed Governor Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts, “and not for the inauguration of Christmas shopping.”

Although the states customarily followed the federal government’s lead on Thanksgiving, they retained the right to set their own date for the holiday, so 48 battles erupted. As usual, New Deal foes had all the wit, if not the votes. A New Hampshire senator urged the President to abolish winter; the Oregon attorney general versified:

Thirty days hath September,

April, June, and November;

All the rest have thirty-one.

Until we hear from Washington.

Twenty-three states celebrated Thanksgiving 1939 on November 23, and another 23 stood fast with November 30. Two states, Colorado and Texas, shrugged their shoulders and celebrated both days—Texas did so to avoid having to move the Texas-Texas A&M football game.

This New Deal experiment in Gimbelism lasted two more years, until finally the NRDGA admitted that there was little difference in retail sales figures between the states that celebrated Thanksgiving early and those that clung to the traditional date. Without fanfare, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to the last Thursday in November. Mark Sullivan remarked that this was the only New Deal initiative FDR ever renounced.

Just as Roosevelt’s megalomaniacal refusal to observe the two-term tradition set by George Washington necessitated the 22nd Amendment, so did his flouting of Thanksgiving precedent require corrective legislation. In a compromise of sorts, FDR signed into law a bill fixing Thanksgiving as the fourth Thursday—not the last Thursday—in November. Never again would Thanksgiving fall on November 29th or 30th. The states followed suit, although Texas held out until 1956.

As we gather together this Thanksgiving, say a silent thanks for Sarah Josepha Hale. And save a drumstick for the resisters—then and now.





Election Day: Two Ruthless Politicians From American History


 photo us-elections-20122_zps4878ff4d.jpg

With the gridlocked Congress’ approval rating consistently staying in the single digits more than the wind chill at Lambeau Field, it’s only natural for people to look back lovingly at years gone by when politicians supposedly knew how to get things done. Usually these screeds of nostalgia focus more on days when bipartisanship was popular. You know, the days when hard drinking men in smoky backrooms scratched each other’s backs and reached across the aisle and employed various other vaguely sexual metaphors to pass some legislation.

But there’s another way to view the bygone era of politicians doing more than looking to score the next sound byte on a 24 hour news program. Think of it as the darkest timeline. Depending on who you talk to, it’s either the pessimist’s or the pragmatist’s view of American history. It goes like this: politicians never figured out how to work together; some just figured out how to do whatever they wanted, consequences be damned.

Of course, the best politicians know how to glad-hand at the appropriate times and how to deal some blows with the iron fist when that’s called for, too. Some were especially adept at the iron fist. Here are two of them from American history.

Abe Lincoln, Tough GuyLincoln

Who better than old honest Abe to stand as a symbol of American unity and reconciliation? The guy who said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” has to be an enduring symbol of Americans knowing how to put their differences behind them, right?

Well, when it came to preserving the Union, the old railsplitter stopped at nothing to accomplish his goals. No, he didn’t just call in a few favors and lean on some old friends for some help: the man decided to pretend a part of the United States Constitution didn’t really count anymore.

This wasn’t like how everybody kind of just conveniently ignores those weird rules about shellfish in Leviticus, either. This was a core principle of American jurisprudence. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, meaning that people under arrest no longer had to be charged with a specific crime. This stunning disregard of Constitutional rights allowed the US Army to arrest anybody who so much as breathed the word, “secession.” Usually, when the Constitution is threatened, the Supreme Court rides to the rescue, but Lincoln treated Chief Justice Taney’s ruling like life advice from an eccentric aunt: he listened to it and then completely disregarded it.

It still isn’t clear if Lincoln really had to trample all over the Constitution to win the war, but he did win it. Yes, it’s more likely John Wilkes Booth was a crazy white supremacist in love with an idea of the south that never existed, rather than a constitutional law scholar, but maybe there’s a reason he shouted “Sic Semper Tyrannous” – “thus always to tyrants” – when he shot Lincoln.


Everybody who studied American history from Hollywood movies knows nothing of note happened in the United States after the Civil War until World War II. You know the story. One minute it’s all top hats and horses and the next it’s cars and planes and Pearl Harbor, with the war that launched a thousand first-person shooters somewhere in between.

But you might remember some stuff about a few dusty-looking, starving farmers in there, too. It’s the 1930’s, the Great Depression is in full force, and FDR thinks he has just the solution. No, it’s not converting every factory in the country into a war machine production center, kick-starting the economy with industrial jobs for everybody and crippling all foreign competition in the process. That comes later. Right now, he’s set on his host of social programs known as the New Deal.

Remember when Lincoln encountered some pretty beleaguered opposition when he applied whiteout to a few lines in the Constitution? Well, by the 1930’s, in a time when the country wasn’t threatening to break into two, people had a little more respect for the Supreme Court. Meaning: Presidents just didn’t say “Nah” when their actions were labeled unconstitutional. Unfortunately for FDR, they were striking down his New Deal programs left and right.

So what’s a guy to do? Adjust his social programs so they conform to the standards of the founding document of our nation? I mean, he could try… or he could try appointing an additional six justices to the court who saw things his way.

That’s exactly what he proposed to do. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it didn’t go over too well. Even John Garner, FDR’s own vice president, didn’t even bother to pretend he thought it was an okay plan: the guy acted like a four year old listening to a lecture on the virtues of vegetables and the importance of sitting still and held his nose and gave the thumbs down as the plan was read aloud to Congress.

So FDR didn’t go through with his plan, but it was perhaps even bolder than Lincoln’s. If it worked, he wouldn’t even have had to pretend to listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion on anything, because he knew what his watered down version would say. Plus, after he threatened his move, the Supreme Court suddenly started finding parts of the New Deal constitutional. FDR knew how to get things done.

It’s election day in America. Maybe you’re planning on swinging by your polling place after work. Maybe you’ve already been. Either way, I hope that you really know the people you’re voting for – at least, as well as you possibly can. If history has taught us one thing, it’s that ruthlessness frequently masquerades as good intentions. Other times, we find that the document we love to cling to so uncompromisingly – the Constitution – is more a guideline than a holy stone tablet. Compromise has always been incredibly important to this nation’s development: a lesson I hope we all heed when we head to the polls today.


Employers to Dump 90% of Health Care Plans: Thanks, ObamaCare!


A beautiful brunette is showing her appreciation towards a job very well done.

Hat/Tip Freedomworks.

Since the days of FDR, our government has been sticking it’s nose into our healthcare system.

There are many problems with the employer-provided health insurance model. It was first implemented as a way to get around FDR’s wage controls during the Great Depression, and by all rights should never have existed in the first place. Tying health insurance to employment. instead of a system that favors individual plans purchased by individuals. is awkward, inefficient, and in many cases unjust.

Then along comes Obama, and his plethora of broken promises making a bad system worse.

However, a shift from corporate control to government control is far, far worse. With an employer, workers at least have some degree of choice. If you are dissatisfied with your health coverage, you can either purchase an individual policy or search for another job with better coverage. Under government control, many people have no such option. They are locked into a monopolistic system that fails to account for individual wants and needs.

Obama famously promised that if you like your health insurance plan, you would be able to keep it. We have already seen that for millions of people, this was a flat out lie. The extent to which ObamaCare would be disruptive to existing health insurance plans, however, may have been underestimated by even the law’s greatest skeptics.

So businesses are gonna bail, big time.

A new study from S&P Capital IQ concludes that, due to the rising cost of health insurance, employers will be dropping coverage in droves over the next few years. By 2020, the authors estimate, roughly 90 percent of workers currently covered by their employers will have been dropped and transferred to the ObamaCare exchanges.

And what does all this do to prices?


If ObamaCare is making insurance more expensive for employers, it is certainly not making it any cheaper for workers either. The latest numbers, coming from Virginia, indicate that by 2015 health premiums will rise by up to 14.7 percent. If these numbers hold for other states—and there’s no reason to think they won’t—the name “Affordable Care Act” takes on a truly cruel irony.

The law that Democrats promised would provide affordable care for all is literally pricing people out of the market, robbing them of their existing plans and penalizing them if they fail to pony up the inflated prices.

At this point, the number of people willing to actively defend ObamaCare has become vanishingly small. The flaws are too obvious and too grievous. The new mantra of the left is that the law simply needs to be “fixed” in order to work as intended. This is a fantasy brought to you by the same people who are responsible for passing a two thousand page bill without reading it and effectively destroying the country’s health insurance market.

Fix it or replace it?

ObamaCare can’t be “fixed.” It is flawed at its core, built upon a foundation of false premises that a central government can manage the health care of 300 million citizens, and that mandates can ever make people better off.

Read the full story here.



New Deal Failed, Made Depression Worse


government waste

When people fail to learn the lessons of history, they are doomed to repeat it.  For some proof, here is what happened with FDR’s New Deal…

Fast forward to 2009, when President Barak Obama promises recovery when the Stimulus Porkulus was passed.  It was promised that unemployment would not rise above seven percent, when it soared well above that.  Then, we were promised three “summers of recovery,” and each and every one was a disappointment.  If fact, the MSM was told to stop using the term, “unexpected” when discussing monthly economic reports.

Now, in reality, the phrase about those repeating history is no longer applicable.  In the age of Alinsky, the doomed repition does occur.  However, it is carefully and persistentyly blamed on someone elsed.  Whether it’s Global Warming Global Cooling Climate change The Big Lie, George W.  Bush, the Tea Party, or even the GOP  must be blamed for the discomfort felt by others when that pesky reality strikes.  So, when Obama tried to duplicate the New Deal, it was doomed to fail-not because of some nefarious plot, but do to reality.   However, in the age of Alinsky, if reality doesn’t fit the narrative, it has to go, and anyone who points that out must be attacked.


May 1945, Hollywood Speaks: We are Adolph Hitler!


Heroic socialist Adolph Hitler in happier times

Heroic socialist Adolph Hitler in happier times

With the American and Russian war machine closing in on Berlin and heroic socialist Adolph Hitler in hiding, Hollywood is making known where its sympathies lie.  A five minute film entitled “We are Adolph Hitler” is being released to theaters this week.

“It’s important that this film be made” said MGM head Louis B. Mayer.

This is my adopted homeland and I love it but I am ashamed of the war crimes our military is committing.  I support our troops but this war is immoral.

The short film opens with many of Hollywood’s top stars holding signs of solidarity that say “I am Adolph Hitler.”

Among the stars signing up for the film are veterans Jimmy Stewart

I am in uniform.  I have moral authority

I am in uniform. I have moral authority

Clark Gable

This country disgusts me.

This country disgusts me.

and David Niven

The war machine of western Europe must give way to socialism.

The war machine of western Europe must give way to socialism.

“I couldn’t remain quiet any longer” said Stewart.

I flew many bombing missions over Germany.  And I always asked myself, “Why?”  Why are we attacking the German people?  What have they ever done to us?   And in these bombing missions I had to bomb civilian targets.  I feel sick at my complicity in these war crimes.

Gable mirrors Stewart in his criticism of the allied war effort.

Hitler is a socialist.  He cares for the poor.  Perhaps that’s why we are bombing them?  The industrialists in our country hate socialism as is well known.  I asked for my discharge because I could no longer participate in this charade of so-called liberation.

Niven in particular criticizes the war crimes of Eisenhower and the allied command.

War crimes!  One war crime after another.  I have burned civilians out of homes. Destroyed private property.  And for what?  To bring Germany to its knees?  Why?  War never! War never again! This war could have been over two years ago if only Roosevelt and the Jew-dominated American war machine weren’t consumed by blood lust and war fever.  Together let us break Adolph Hitler out of his bunker!

From Washington President Truman denies that the war was started to destroy the socialist economic model.

That’s just ridiculous.  I favor socialized health care.  We didn’t start this war.  Germany started it.  We are just bringing it to its logical conclusion.

We are Adolph Hitler has already been nominated for best short film of the year.

Note:  For those wondering what this post is satirizing I now present “I am Bradley Manning.”

I am Bradley Manning

Original Post:  Manhattan Infidel


The 7 Pieces of Advice by Trotsky for Obama, found in the 1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction’


This image is taken from the 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon ‘Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?’. It focuses on the character of Leon Trotsky, who is laying out a series of policy goals for the United States. The Chicago Tribute suggested in its latest reprint of this cartoon that we take a look at this cartoon and see if it rings true in today’s political and economic climate.

Whereas others have focused on simply analyzing the larger cartoon to identify all the characters in it (for the best analysis see this post), today I am going to attempt to see if this cartoon sheds some understanding on the economic and political challenges facing today and whether it gives us as voters of a free nation any sort of guidance on how to vote in upcoming elections or which way to pressure our public officials:

  1. Motivations.

    Leon Trotsky was the founder of an ideology called Trotskyism, which is an extreme left-wing political ideology that believed that although the ‘working class’ had seized power in Russia, true socialism could not be established unless there was a global and permanent revolution led by vanguard parties of the smartest and best workers who would take control of society and achieve real change that would transform society. His vision of progress forward was defeated because even the communists saw that his economic and political theories were flawed and ignored the realities of of the world and did not lead to positive results as determined objectively. It is stunning how closely his ideas and thoughts mirror those of Obama.

    Although in specific there are differences that will arise from current US President Barack Obama’s general lack of referencing specifics and although Obama is by no means is a committed follower of Trotsky (I’ve suggested previously that Obama may in fact be a fascist), in the general Obama appears to echo the same ideas and beliefs of Trotsky. During his campaign he talked often about fundamentally transforming society by giving more power to bureaucratic elites, and one of the reasons why he was initially so popular overseas is that he translated his message of change and hope for workers and the working class to make it a call for an international and permanent struggle.

    Both Obama and Trotsky appear to be motivated by a sincere belief that their economic and political policies will indeed make the world a better place- but sadly, Obama is facing the same realities and objective results that Trotsky faced. One can only hope that he doesn’t end up some day with an ice pick in his back put there by a more committed Stalinist who works in his Politiburico.

  2. Spend Spend Spend.

    Soviet economic policy, as pushed by the most progressive and idealistic of the communists, advocated for higher and higher government spending. From a low of 8784 million rubles in 1928, Soviet government spending skyrocketed 106238 million rubles by 1937 (spending)- and the Soviet economy crashed, millions of people starved to death, the ruble fell heavily in value, and the standard of living fell. Even though the government spent more and more money, things got worse, which might be shocking to those who think that more government spending is good, but is perfectly understandable to those who see unelected and accountable bureaucrats taking money and property from those who earn it and blowing it on politically connected businesses in an inefficient manner.

    President Obama also has attempted to increase the wealth of society and make people more free by increasing government spending, and the United States has seen similar results to those experienced by FDR and the Soviet Union in the 1930’s- economic depression. And the worse is yet to come- unlike past spending programs which were structured in the immediate time frame, President Obama’s spending programs are paid for through debt, promises, and IOU’s, a ticking time bomb which is going to destroy the prosperity of future generations. It simply does not work to take property from others, either via taxes or fees or through borrowing money paid for with interest or future payments, and then have it spent by politically connected bureaucrats. It destroys wealth and property because this property and wealth is spent inefficiently and in a manner that violates the unseen supply-and-demand hand of God.

    Both the rulers of the Soviet Union and President Obama may sincerely believe that their economic policies of spending more money will indeed stimulate the economy and lead to a more prosperous people. President Obama has completely unhinged from reality on this, and his reply to mounting staggering debts and deficits is to borrow more money from foreign nations and spend that as well. Sadly, these policies have led to a long and lingering recession, matched only by the Great Depression that occurred the last time these ‘spend spend spend’ economic policies were employed.

  3. Under the Guise of Recovery.

    The main reason that the people of Russia went along with the economic plans put forth by Lenin and later Stalin were that they were desperate to recover from the effects of various calamities. World War One destroyed the Russian economy and so the people desperately empowered Lenin to implement his communist policies. The results of these early communist policies proved to be devastating economically, and so everyone looked forward to Lenin’s New Economic Policies. These more-capitalistic policies proved to be successful, but took power away from the elites and politically-connected, and so as soon as Lenin was dead, the tyrant Stalin proclaimed them failures and implemented his own economic policies, which turned into even worse failures. It was by disguising these various policies as responses to some sort of crisis that made the people willing to go along with them, willing to sacrifice seeing objective positive results, willing to sacrifice their property, liberty, and eventually their lives.

    In the United States, our nation has also gone along with the ‘under the guise of recovery’ swindle, giving up freedoms and property in a desperate attempt to recover from the Bush years, which we are all told were awful but are increasingly looking good in comparison to the lingering Obama recession. In response to various crisis’, many of them provoked by Obama’s very policies or policies which he supported during his short time in elected office, our nation is embarking on a historic redirection towards more government control over industries, more government control over our lives, and more divisive class warfare and bitter partisanship. It’s a crisis, we are told, and the only response is more cowbell, and so our nation continues to empower the very man who is pushing the very policies that are making the crisis worse.

    Same excuses used in both communist Soviet Union in the 1920’s and 1930’s and those used by President Obama and the Democratic Party today. And sadly, both groups appear to be supported or intimidated or fooled by the public that they are making poorer and less free.

  4. Bust the Government.

    A little history lesson for you- with the death of Lenin in 1924, the Russian political system was in flux. Before 1924, the Politburo and other communist institutions had run the nation, which Lenin having a great amount of power but Stalin and Trotsky also having big roles to play. Lenin’s death led to a power struggle won by Stalin, who eventually excited Trotsky. Later problems in the Soviet Union were blamed on Stalin’s political enemies, who were killed off in the Great Purges of the late 1930’s. The key to understanding what was happening this time is that the government and political structures were continually being broken by the very men who were promising to fix them- Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.

    And today, President Obama is stunning in his disregard for the historical political system that is established by the Constitution. In many instances he has violated passages of the Constitution, if not legally according to the letter of the law than in dozens of instances realistically according to the spirit of the law, from recess appointments to ignoring the War Powers Act to governing without budgets to drone attacks to appointed czars. At perhaps no point in the last century has our political system been as broken and busted as it is today, with the nation increasingly sharply divided and bitter and partisan attacks commonplace. The Democrats in the US Senate, Obama’s allies, are even going so far as to seriously contemplate removing the filibuster so that they can jam legislation past the minority because they allege that the old historic political ways of doing things in our nation need to be broken.

    Breaking government and busting society, whether you call it permanent revolution by the proletariat or the forward march of progressives, destroys property, makes people less secure in their rights, and eventually causes death. It happened in the past- and it is happening today.

  5. Blame the Capitalists for Failure.

    Trotsky blamed capitalists for both the political and economic problems facing humanity, arguing that the economic boom and bust cycle that led to the destruction of so much wealth was caused by capitalists and that the lack of political power held by workers was also their fault. He believed that private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit was at the root of the problems facing society, and that the solution to this was a genuine workers’ state where the working class controlled all the political power and the state owned and controlled the means of production. His desire was for the workers to really rule and the government to run industries for their good. But in reality what Soviet Russia ended up with was a nation ruled by a bureaucratic caste, where decisions were made by special interest groups and labor unions that controlled these various bureaucracies and made economic and political decisions to reward their supporters and not benefit the nation as a whole (or even ‘the workers’).

    The modern day Democratic Party, led by Barack Obama, has apparently subscribed to these very same ideas, and is reaping the very same results of the implementation of these ideas. Running in 2008 President Obama promised to be able to smooth out the boom and bust cycle of capitalism- especially the banking industry and investment of capital- by empowering government agencies to have stronger oversight over them. In another example, he argued that government ownership of healthcare, a major industry in the United States, would prevent healthcare costs from rising. And it was his belief that by having the government take over major automobile companies and then turn over that ownership to ‘the workers’ that both the automobile industries and the workers would benefit. And everywhere that his Trotsky-like ideas have been implemented, the results have been economic and political failure. Industries have failed to prosper- even General Motors is only profitable right now because it was bailed out by billions of dollars and given billions more in government support- and politically power has shifted farther away from the workers and increasingly towards the bureaucrats. The gulf between the rich and poor has widened, not narrowed, as as result of Obama’s Marxist policies, and this has been bad for America.

    And through all the failures of Trotsky and Obama, even as their own policies resulted in more failures, they have blamed ‘the capitalists’, ‘the rich’, ‘the bourgeoisie’, or ‘the 1%’. Deficits skyrocketed, currencies collapsed in values, the world became more unstable, civil unrest became more common, individual liberties were less protected, unemployment went up, and GDP stagnated- and yet still Trotsky and Obama blame capitalists.

  6. Junk the Constitution.

    A constitution is a body of fundamental laws that set up the principles, structures, and processes of government- and although I’ve been reading about the Soviet system of government over the last couple days, honestly I can’t really figure out how it works, especially during the 1920’s and 1930’s that are addressed in the cartoon. The principles of government appear to be ‘junked’ by the 1930’s- no longer holding to idealistic communism but instead succumbing to the reality of human nature. The structures of governing appear to be junked as well- the various political structures that Lenin may have used like the Politburo appear to have become merely tools for the people in power instead of actual structures of governing. And the process of creating laws to govern the actions of men appear to have been junked so much that in the Soviet system it really became all about decrees and directives from the ruler, whether it was Lenin or Stalin.

    And in America over the last couple of years under President Obama and his allies in Congress, we are seeing the same junking of our governmental principles, structures, and processes. The process on how the Affordable Care Act became law still confuses me- my students always ask me “just how did it get through the filibuster in the Senate” and my explanation, even though I explain it correctly, still rings hollow and untrue. In discussing how our nation is going to put in place laws to avoid the fiscal cliff or sequestration, I’m forced to spend a lot of time talking about ‘secret negotiations’ and backroom discussion between government elites, wondering the whole time where the time-honored processes involved in creating legislation through Congress and committees went. During President Obama’s run for the President, one can’t help but notice that his campaign was devoid of governing principles and that Democrats who ran for Congress also seemed to lack governing principles as well- they didn’t talk about their economic philosophies, or the politicians that they would emulate in office, or the latest political philosophies that they were students of, preferring instead discussions about power and demonetization of their opponents. And the czars and other bureaucrats who appear to be gaining more in power outside of the traditional structures of government are clearly similar to the bureaucrats and czars who ruled Soviet Russia.

    Principles, structures, and processes- look at how these are increasingly becoming junked in our nation as our nation moves away from the founding principles, the structures established in the written Constitution, and the processes of making laws and executing those laws that governed our nation for the first several hundred years. Just like the Soviets junked their Constitution as Trotsky recommended, Obama and the Democrats are junking ours today.

  7. Declare a Dictatorship.

    The last piece of advice that Trotsky wrote to Obama all those many years ago was to declare a dictatorship. This is the last step on the path to tyranny and injustice and the final attack on property and those people who create property, and is the end goal of all tyrants. Although Trotsky might have been suggesting that the dictatorship should be some sort of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ where the political and economic power was controlled by the worker class within a democratic system, the reality is that his allies and friends and supporters and fellow Marxists eventually established a classical ‘dictatura’ where a small group of undemocratic elites control the economic and political power in the nation.

    And although President Obama sees himself as some sort of transformative community activist who is going to empower the workers or middle class or whatever he calls them, the reality that we are seeing is where an smaller group of appointed individuals are increasingly gaining in economic and political power. Trotsky saw himself as a fighter for the community too, but much like his experience, the reality that the Tea Party on the right and the Occupy Wall Street on the left can both plainly see is that political and economic power is moving father away from the common man, the middle class, or the worker and increasingly being concentrated in the hands of those who have the right political connections, who are the union bosses, those who have control over the bureaucracy, and those who have families and inherited wealth. The political classes enrich themselves while the workers become poorer, all due to President Obama and the Democratic Marxist policies which are supposed to due the opposite.

    President Obama is not declaring a dictatorship in the sense that he is going to announce that he is some sort of dictator for life- rather he is going to declare that the America and the world should embrace a new arrangement of economic and political power which empowers a smaller elite to make decisions for everyone based on some sort of notion of fairness or social justice. It’s a sneaky sort of declaration of dictatorship, but is one none-the-less, and the results will be that you personally will have less power over your own property, less power over decisions regarding your own healthcare, less choice in your own actions, and less protection of your life. It’ll be a dictatorship different than the sort that Trotsky advised, softly declared by a smooth-sounding teleprompter reading tyrant.

President Obama is not an evil person or a conspiracy theory or a giant plant or someone who is secretly planning on the destruction of the United States. He is just a guy who spews rhetoric that some people believe in, and he does it so well and campaigns so effectively that he has become the President of the strongest and most influential nation in the world. From this position, he is in place to implement his economic and political theories, which are proven failures that have driven nations into depression and war in the past, but which he is ignorant of because of his overall ignorance of economic and political history combined with his stunning conceit and confidence.

The advice and truths that Trotsky is writing in this cartoon are advice and truths on how to establish a tyranny and destroy life, liberty, and property, and it appears from an objective standpoint over the last several years that President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress (and some Republicans too) are following this advice and believing these truths. They are rejecting other truths on which our nation was built- that all men are equal, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that the purpose of government is limited to protecting these rights from men who would take them away, that these rights are the right to live and live in freedom and earn and keep property, and that governments that abuse any of these rights are tyrannical and deserve to be abolished so that men may put in place better governments to protect these rights.

America is playing out some sort of Greek play, where our main character in his hubris thinks that he can achieve positive results by implementing the same policies in the past that only achieved negative results. Opposition to him and his agenda should be motivated by knowing that history, morality, and truth are on our side and not with him, and that where he is taking our nation and the world is to a place where life is less secure, liberties and freedoms are broken, and property and wealth are not protected.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt


History repeats itself, and when the economy crashed in 2008 there was a great opportunity for President Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) to play the role of former US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). And as time has gone on, the comparisons between these two Presidents and their actions has become more clear. Following are Three Ways in which President Obama is like President Roosevelt:

1. Both candidates ran for election the first time as moderates but have governed from the start as radicals.

In 1932, FDR ran for election on a platform promising less spending, less government, and vague policies and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Hoover attacked Roosevelt as a capitalist president who would only make the Depression worse by decreasing taxes, reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting “trade [with] the world”, and cutting “Government—Federal and State and local”.

In 2008, BHO ran for election on a platform that promised a balanced budget, more efficient government, and vague rhetoric and promises designed to appeal to a broad range of voters. Both won on these moderate platforms- but after winning both instead pushed for radical policies and betrayed voters by not doing anything that they promised to do.

FDR did not lower spending- he increased it. FDR did not deliver less government and less socialism- he expanded government and pushed for more socialism by government. FDR did not govern in a way that would appeal to a broad range of voters- he capitalized on crisis and wars to maintain power for too long while governing in a radical way. Hoover proved to be exactly wrong in his attacks on FDR- although FDR ran on a particular platform, he proved to govern in the opposite manner.

BHO also did not balance the budget and cut the deficit in half like he promised, instead doing the exact opposite by pushing for budgets that produced the largest deficits in history and drastically raised the amount of debt that America was forced to borrow from China and other nations. BHO has not even tried to create more efficient, smarter, faster, and responsive government, instead working hard to massively expand the size and scope of government bureaucracy and insulate it from any accountability or oversight. And Obama has not governed in a nonpartisan way that bridges the gaps between red and blue voters, instead actively promoting divisiveness and spewing forth bitterly partisan rhetoric and now presently engaging in the most relentlessly negative campaign in the history of our nation.

2. Both candidates inherited a bad recession and responded to it by turning the recession into a long and lingering depression.

In 1932, FDR did inherit a recession- after the economy collapsed in 1929 Hoover had responded to it by doing everything wrong, expanding the size of the national government, restricting free trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and having the government meddle in markets. The response to this liberal intervention by Hoover was predictable- the economy did not bounce back as it had from earlier recessions and instead lingered and got worse.

In 2008, BHO also inherited a recession- major companies were bankrupted by union policies, bad debts and investments caught up to banks and investors, and the housing market collapsed because government policies and community activists had encouraged and supported risky and unsustainable actions. This sharp recession hit in the later part of 2008 and likely would have lingered until 2009, after which the bottom would have been hit, bad investments written off, bankrupt companies gone under, and businesses and consumers adjusting the economic recession. But both FDR and BHO took these recessions and made them into depressions.

FDR responded to the recession by killing off economic activity by raising taxes and regulations, made investors and businesses nervous by rapidly changing the rules of the game and acting in an arbitrary manner, and soaking up excess capital by pushing for more government spending that turned out to simply be giveaways to political friends and allies. The economy did not improve- the Great Depression continued, the economy sank into another depression, and it wasn’t until after FDR’s death that the economy once again recovered to where it had been before his presidency.

BHO also responded to the recession by working to kill off the recovery and choke off economic recovery. During his entire administration he has pushed for increased taxes, in particular increased taxes on small businesses, investors, and ‘the rich’, making small businesses, investors, and the rich nervous about their income and become anxious to protect it from predatory government policies promoted by Obama. BHO has soaked up excess capital and money that should have been available for lending to consumers by instead borrowing massive amounts of money, turning money that could have built new businesses and fueled new investments into slush funds given to political allies and bad investments in green energy and other outlandish schemes. Efforts to reform businesses and labor were met with hostility by the Obama administration, which seized private companies that showed signs of economic distress by dividing them in half between themselves and labor, and working to punish companies that attempted to become leaner and more efficient through labor reforms. Even attempts to build new thriving and profitable industries in energy were met with hostility by Obama, which has worked tirelessly to kill off this economic activity and prolong the recession and deepen it so that the short recession turns instead into a severe depression.

3. Both inherited an unstable world situation and have through their policy actions made the world more unstable.

In 1932, Japan invaded Manchuria, unemployment was rising in Germany, Stalin’s continued to implement disastrous centralization programs in the Soviet Union, there were political upheavals in Brazil and Mexico, and there was instability in the Middle East.

But during the course of FDR’s administration, events around the world spiralled out of control, culminating in a World War. To be fair, at this time in history the United States had far less influence on world events and it is debatable whether or not actions by the United States might have been able to stop the Jewish Genocide, the Japanese invasion of China and the related atrocities there, the outbreak of a massive World War, the horrible results of Stalin’s government policies which resulted in the murder of millions, or any of the any other many bad results around the world. But it is also fair to say that these things all occurred under FDR, mostly as he stood by and watched- or even in some cases supported them.

BHO also inherited an unstable world situation- Afghanistan still was dealing with terrorism, dictatorships in the Middle East were facing efforts to replace and reform them, and China was exploring whether or not it could begin to seriously challenge the US in a range of areas.

And yet, only a short 4 years later, the world has not responded to Obama’s policies by becoming a safer, more stable, more humane world. The entire Middle East has now been engulfed a confusing and bloody uprising that President Obama has alternately and seemingly randomly supported and acted to suppress, highlighted by radical terrorists becoming more powerful in Egypt, a deadly civil war in Libya, continued oppression and atrocities in Syria, and instability in surrounding regions. Perhaps the only area that appears to be improving in Iraq- and Obama spent most of his life being critical of our actions there. Iran has moved steadily closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, captured one of our drones, fired on our troops, and continued to support terrorists around the world. Afghanistan has gotten worse, and Obama has responded by firing generals who supposedly disrespect him in tabloid magazines. Russia and China have filled the void in world leadership that Obama represents, mocking him as the weakling that he is and laughing as they routinely outmaneuver Obama and damage US interests around the world.

These are only three examples of how President Obama has governed like President Roosevelt- there are many more out there. Here is one article that does so- Comparing the Great Depression to the Great Recession. This is not good- FDR’s leadership was characterized by the Great Depression and World War Two, and although many people think that these are positives and that FDR is to be applauded for being a leader during a massive economic depression and a horrible world war, in my opinion it is much preferable to have a President like Reagan who presided over an economic boom and increased world stability. We can only hope that President Obama does not serve any more terms of office and that we get a nice moderate after him (like how Eisenhower eventually followed FDR) to restore the good times to America.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher


Just How Delusional Is Barack Obama?


The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer fromillusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] _ (Wikipedia)

In the early days of this blog,  I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece in which I suggested that there was a psychological explanation of why Barack Obama thought he was so smart when he clearly was anything but smart. I had come across an article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it seemed to fit Obama to a “T”. At the risk of over simplification, describes people who are in fact inept but see themselves as smarter than anyone else. They are incapable of seeing their own ineptness no matter how many facts or counter arguments are presented to them. So, I ask that you keep this simple definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in mind as we review a couple of articles that were recently published.

Paul Mirengoff , of Power Line, decided to weigh in on the now famous statement by our Fearless Leader that the private economy is doing fine.

… In my view, Obama was driven to his unfortunate remark by frustration with the private sector for “sitting on its money.” Since the president always thinks it’s about him, I imagine that he takes it personally that businesses are hoarding their money, rather than expanding rapidly, as he wishes he could direct them to do. Since he naturally takes an adversarial view of the private sector, he must feel it is out to get him.


What a sorry combination of self-pity and ignorance. And how ironic, coming from “no drama Obama,” our “smartest president.”

Okay, admittedly, this is supposition on the part of Mr. Mirengoff. But, what he suggest does seem to fit what we know about our President, doesn’t it? So, let’s move on to something that is not supposition.

When I read the title to this Fox News article by Edward Klein, What do historians really think of Obama?, I don’t know what I expected; but, it wasn’t this:

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his  administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to  dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff,  Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the  meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed  the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians  provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go  off the rails.

Unbelievable! Obama has been office but five months and he was already looking for his place in history. We know this because Klein knew one of the “presidential historians” that was present at this and two other such meetings with Obama. Klein names all the historians present; but, of course, does not identify the one he interviewed. here are some revealing excerpts from the interview:

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind:  how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic  trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson,  another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while  implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that  he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He  could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions  of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile  the United States to a less dominant role in the world.


Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past  presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents  he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F.  Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy  Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….


In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in  2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to  the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team  botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States  government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It  revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

Klein wanted to know “ how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the  president’s promise with his performance ” here is part of the historians response:

There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and  disappointment,”…

For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his  political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of  his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public’s imagination  and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn’t enough in a president. Great  presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example  and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald  Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared  deeply and personally about them.


More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets.  Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely  that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter.”

Yes, indeed! And when that verdict comes in, you can bet that Barack Obama will be standing in his study with his head turned up and his jaw jutted out and he will be thinking “Those fools are too stupid to see what a great President I was.”

Is it Eextreme narcissism, delusions of grandeur, Dunning-Kruger effect, or is he just a man-child who took to heart his mommy’s assertions that her little boy was “soooo smart”. I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire


Lessons from Economic Recessions- Introduction and Great Depression


History teaches lessons- it allows those of us in the present to see how results in the past worked. Economic recessions are a great teaching tool for policy makers and average citizens, because they teach us how the recession may have happened and how to emerge from the recession and therefore inform us as to the policy actions that we must take and those that we as citizens must support.

The problem is though that policymakers and citizens really only have learned about one historical economic recession, The Great Depression, and the lessons that they have been learned regarding this recession are usually the wrong lessons. There are other recessions that our nation has battled through and the lessons we can learn from them may be more instructive to policy makers and average citizens, especially in light of the current Obama recession.

The version of the Great Depression that most Americans learn is that unregulated capitalism, free trade, lax regulation, and unequal distribution of wealth led to a massive collapse of our economy in 1929, then President Hoover did nothing to intervene and help, and our nation didn’t recover until FDR actively and aggressively acted with his New Deal policies of massive spending, massive debt, massive regulation, and massive changes to the American system. The problem with this version of history, and the lessons that it teaches, is that it is almost wholly false.

The Great Depression resulted from government policies- the Federal Reserve messing with rates, the regulations and taxes from the Wilson administration, etc- combined with restrictive trade policies and the collapse of a major economic power (Germany), which resulted in a recession in 1929. President Hoover then acted in a very active and ultimately destructive manner, increasing spending, regulation, and activity by the government, resulting in the recession deepening and lasting until 1932. FDR took these mistakes and expanded on them and enlarged them, and the result was that a real recovery never took place and rather the nation dropped into another recession (1937), leading us to just lump this whole time period together as the ‘Great Depression.’ Although the world war helped mask many of our economic problems, it wasn’t until the death of FDR and the ending of his policies that our nation began to recover in any real economic normal sense, and wealth began to be created again. This is a closer version of events, with entirely different sets of lessons to learn.

But don’t take my word for it- check out the following books to become more educated on the Great Depression- America’s Great DepressionGreat Myths of the Great Depression (this one is great- only $2, a dozen pages, and a great gift for any history teacher to receive), or Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse.

In my next post I’ll address other economic recessions and the lessons to learn from them.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher


The Inside Deal: Obama's Economic Program


Democrat President Barack Obama’s economic programs can be best called “The Inside Deal.” There is a long history of ‘deals’ in our nation, where the government expands unconstitutionally into areas where it is not supposed to be and crowds out human freedom and industry. These deals all have cool names- Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society- and as Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have jammed through considerable changes in our nation over the last year, it is appropriate that we give a name to Obama’s economic policies. I hearby submit to the world that we call Obama’s economic programs “The Inside Deal.”

The Inside Deal is Democratic President Barack Obama’s domestic economic program and is characterized by extensive government spending for politically connected groups within American society. It is aimed to reward those groups that supported Obama’s campaign for the Presidency in 2010, such as labor unions, public employee unions, teachers unions, environmentalists, anti-war protesters, Wall Street, and big businesses. Some of the programs that were passed by the Democratic Congress at the time to reward these groups include the stimulus bill, the healthcare bill, and massive annual budgets.

Increasingly during the height of the Inside Deal, there is a link between who receives taxpayer money from the federal government and their political connections. Called by some crony capitalism, it is increasingly unpopular, and in the face of continuing recession in spite of (or because of) the massive deficits that marked the Inside Deal, this program was largely overturned by Republican Congressional majorities and Presidents from 2010-2020 (hopefully).

Hopefully someone will soon create a wikipedia article on this, describing Obama’s Inside Deal in more depth.

The first ‘deal’ that was made between government and America where citizens traded their rights and liberties for the promise of ‘progress’ was the Square Deal. The Square Deal was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking the plutocracy and trusts through rhetoric and expansions of federal power while at the same time protecting business from the extreme demands of the rising communists.

Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had The New Deal. This was a series of economic programs passed by Congress from 1933 to his reelection in 1936. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the “3 Rs”: relief, recovery and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. To see a list of some of the programs that comprise FDR’s New Deal, see my post 1930’s Are Root of All That is Wrong.

The next ‘deal’ was offered by Democrat President Harry Truman, who presented a 21 point program of domestic legislation outlining a series of proposed actions in the fields of economic development and social welfare, including the call for universal health care. But in the face of peace and rising prosperity, the country decided that it didn’t want to accept this deal, and the boom times of the 1950’s and 1960’s followed.

But Democrat Lyndon Johnson was inspired by the Fair Deal, and when he became President, he tried once again to make a deal between government and society whereby people would trade their individual rights and freedoms and liberties for some sense of ‘fairness’ in society. He called his ‘deal’ the Great Society. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The federal government has since spent trillions of dollars on these issues, and education, healthcare, urban areas, and transportation systems are now much worse today then they would have been if the federal government would not have stuck its nose into those areas and let human ingenuity and freedom and industry work unchained and untaxed.

Obama’s Inside Deal represents then just the latest in a long line of usurpation’s that have the goal of reducing our rights to life, liberty, and protection of property. Like our forefathers before, it is up to us to fight and overturn these injustices, least we be reduced to a state of tyranny.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher


FDR and terrorists and spies, oh my…


On December 25th, 2009 a 23 year old Nigerian Muslim boarded Northwest Airlines flight number 253 with explosives hidden in his underwear. His name: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. His mission: to kill as many Americans as possible. His training came from Al Qaeda after he was recruited by Anwar al-Awlaki. The same Anwar al-Awlaki who had ties to the shooter in the Ft. Hood massacre, Major Nadal Malik Hassan.

Abdulmutallab (ab-dool-moo-tal-ab) is an enemy combatant. He donned no uniform, and carried no insignia of any standing army. He wore civilian clothes and attempted to perform a terrorist act upon the citizens of this country. Yet he was not interrogated to find out if he was part of a plot with other would-be bombers. He was not interrogated as an enemy combatant in order to ascertain where he received his training, bomb materials and/or financial support. He was not interrogated in order to find out names, contact information, phone numbers or the email accounts of those who trained and supported his attempted terrorist attack.

Instead, Abdulmutallab was questioned for 50 minutes in his hospital room, where he was awaiting surgery for the burns he received when he tried to detonate the bomb in his underwear. The responding FBI agents decided against Mirandizing the suspect due to the “public safety” exception which allows police agents to question suspects to protect the public interest. Naturally they suspected Abdulmutallab was one of many terrorists on planes that day. However, after Abdulmutallab got out of surgery, a different FBI team, a “clean team” resumed questioning him and then gave him Miranda rights.

Now at this point it is pertinent to point out that Obama fancies himself a type of modern day FDR. He compared his first 100 days in office to FDR’s and his handling of the economic recession practically mirrors FDR’s actions. But FDR and Obama part ways in one area of Presidential responsibility, national defense.

On June 19 [1942] the President received an excited call from Francis Biddle, his attorney general. Six days before, Biddle told the President, “at 1:30 A.M. an unarmed Coast Guard patrolman near Amagansett, Montauk Point, Long Island, discovered two men placing material in a hole they had dug; one of them covered the patrolman with a gun, gave him $260 and told him to keep his mouth shut. I shall, of course, keep you informed.” As J. Edgar Hoover’s nominal boss, Biddle later recalled the FBI chief’s demeanor while describing the plan to track down the rest of the saboteurs: “His eyes were bright, his jaw set, excitement flickering around the edge of his nostrils,” Biddle remembered. The question now was how much to tell the public. Hoover wanted no announcement that might alert the men still at large. The President agreed, and the press was, for the moment, frozen out of the story.

FDR’s longstanding preoccupation with sabotage now seemed validated. Biddle admitted, “I had a bad week trying to sleep as I thought of the possibilities. The saboteurs might have other caches hidden, and at any moment an explosion was possible.” [Saboteur] Dasch had, in fact, revealed that, along with their transportation and industrial targets, the Pastorius mission was supposed to spread terror by placing firebombs in department stores and delayed-action explosives in hotels and in crowded railroad stations.

So long before 9/11, long before the Christmas Day Bomber, enemy combatants were caught on U.S. soil, attempting to kill American citizens. How did FDR respond to this threat to national security?  Well within days, all of the would-be saboteurs were apprehended; mainly because Dasch, one of the first two that were caught, turned on his comrades and gave them up. At this point, FDR laid out exactly how he expected them to be dealt with.

Three days after all eight saboteurs were in custody, FDR sent Biddle a memo making clear his expectations. “The two Americans are guilty of treason,” he told the attorney general. “I do not see how they can offer any adequate defense. . . it seems to me that the death penalty is almost obligatory.” As for the six German citizens, “They were apprehended in civilian clothes. This is an absolute parallel of the Case of Major [John] Andre in the Revolution and of Nathan Hale. Both of these men were hanged.” The President hammered home his point once more: “The death penalty is called for by usage and by the extreme gravity of the war aim and the very existence of our American govemment.”

FDR held sway his iron will in this matter, as he did in many other matters that he wanted done his way, telling Biddle that he did NOT want the saboteurs tried in civilian court, but in a military tribunal that he would appoint. FDR said the men did not warrant a civilian trial because they “had penetrated battle lines strung on land along our two coasts and guarded on the sea by our destroyers, and were waging battle within our country.” The military tribunal would be quick and efficient, not having to deal with the complicated rules of evidence or protracted appeals process that at times beleaguered the civilian courts. The death sentence that FDR sought was easier to obtain in a military tribunal, requiring only 2/3 majority, not unanimous decision. He further told Biddle, “I want one thing clearly understood, Francis: I won’t give them up . . . I won’t hand them over to any United States Marshall armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand!”

Conviction should be simple, Biddle promised FDR, since “[t]he major violation of the Law of War is crossing behind the lines of a belligerent to commit hostile acts without being in uniform.”

On July 2 the President announced that the eight accused would stand trial before a military commission composed of seven generals, and they would be charged with violating the eighty-first and eighty-second Articles of War dealing with espionage, sabotage, and conspiracy. Court-appointed lawyers for the defendants made a game effort to move the trial to a civilian court, taking the constitutional issue all the way to the Supreme Court, but the justices backed the legality of a military tribunal. Biddle himself was to prosecute, an unusual move, having a civilian serve as prosecutor in a military proceeding. But FDR was taking no chances. The Army’s Judge Advocate General was rusty and had not tried a case for over twenty years. FDR wanted his own man before the bar.

All eight were sentenced to death. The generals sent their verdict to the President. Roosevelt, acting, in effect, as the court of last resort, confirmed six of the death sentences, but commuted Burger’s sentence to life and Dasch’s to thirty years for their willingness to betray their comrades. August 8 was set for the executions, which would take place in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail. Eight weeks had elapsed from the night the first saboteurs had landed on Long Island.

Eight weeks. I am not saying that the Abdulmutallab should be put to death. But if he had received justice from the Obama administration as swiftly as the above mentioned eight men received their justice from the Roosevelt administration, then he would have been sentenced on February 12th, 2010. He now awaits trial, defended by a lawyer paid for by the American taxpayers.

Barack Hussein Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when he learned of this terrorist attempt. Does he regret not cutting his vacation short and addressing the American public right away? Doubtful. Maybe he regrets allowing Abdulmutallab to “lawyer up,” leaving gaping holes in our intelligence that might have been garnered from him. Again, very doubtful.

I wonder what FDR would say about this. It is said that he did have a regret about the eight saboteurs that he dealt with in 1942. FDR’s only regret? That they were not hanged.