Liberal media are desperate to get you to believe the Trump - Roosevelt narrative. But who really buys this kabuki theater anyways?

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

"there was much friction between LaFollette and Roosevelt. You can say that they both wanted more government."

I agree. This wraps everything up and brings it back to post 1 really nicely. You'll get in trouble for speaking this truth though. You shouldn't but you will.

Two men. Actually, there are three. Let us compare these three men:

Wisconsin's Fighting Bob LaFollette wanted more government
King Teddy I wanted more government
Donald Trump wants less government.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "But in any case the Founding Fathers did not want a national police force because among other things that would be meddlesome.
Here they are, the Founding Founding Fathers discussing that very thing.
Yes, they meant a little more than just law enforcement but they also meant law enforcement as well."

In fact, your quoted passages had nothing to do with a national police force.
Rather, they were discussing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 4, Clause 2), which the Founders did approve and ratify.
The Supremacy Clause makes the US Constitution, Federal laws and treaties the supreme law -- which override state laws & constitutions wherever they contradict.
Sure, we can debate that if you wish, but the fact remains those Founders' discussions had nothing to do with a national law enforcement agency.

ProgressingAmerica: "Nobody in their right mind claims that the Founders favored the creation of a national police.
And notice the flow of the debate, the longer it went on the more offensive it got until that last vote is overwhelmingly no by 9 to 3.
That's exactly what King Teddy I did in creating the FBI, was create a meddlesome national police force.
And he did it with less than an executive order.
The Founding Fathers did not give the Federal Government a role in your so-called "law enforcement"."

All that kind of talk is 100% pure nonsense, since the Founders absolutely did create a national law enforcement service, at least two of them:

1. In 1789 Congress passed the Judiciary Act creating the United States Marshalls, and Pres. Washington immediately appointed US Marshalls for every state and territory.
   From the beginning, US Marshalls had a long list of law enforcement functions, especially in service to Federal courts.

2. In 1789, Congress created Customs Special Agents responsible for enforcing Federal customs laws.

3. In 1790, Congress created the Revenue Marine Service (today's Coast Guard) in the Treasury Department as an armed customs law enforcement service.

   1794 Washington & Light Horse Harry Lee Review US Army troops
   sent to enforce Federal law and suppress the Whiskey Rebellion:

   

4. In 1794, Congress authorized Pres. Washington to raise a 13,000 man military force to enforce the law and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

5. In 1806, Pres. Jefferson ordered the Mississippi militia under Maj. Perkins to arrest his former VP Aaron Burr on charges of treason, for Burr seeking to secede Louisiana.

6. In 1814, after the secessionist Hartford Convention, Pres. James Madison moved thousands of US Army troops from the border with Canada to Albany NY, to put down potential rebellions in New England.

7. In 1832, Pres. Andrew Jackson ordered a dozen US Navy warships and 5,000 military personnel to Charleston Harbor to enforce US laws and prevent secession of South Carolina.

8. In 1857, Democrat Pres. Buchanan sent Johnson's Army of 3,000 to Utah to suppress the Mormon Rebellion.

9. In 1865, Congress created the US Secret Service to combat counterfeiting of US currency.

10. In 1870-71, Congress passed Enforcement & Ku Klux Klan Acts to protect the rights of newly freed slaves using US Marshalls and US Army troops.

11. In 1887, under Democrat Pres. Cleveland, Congress required the Federal government to enforce regulations of interstate commerce.

12. In 1896, after the Haymarket Affair, under Democrat Pres. Cleveland, US Attorneys within the Attorney General's Office (and in coordination with local law enforcement), began monitoring violent anarchists.

13. In 1908, TR's AG Bonaparte directed a reorganization of 38 investigators scattered in offices of the Justice Department into one office and chief.
    Beginning in 1909, that reorganization was funded by Congress under the name "Bureau of Investigation".

My point is: the US 1787 Constitution specifically makes itself the Supreme Law of the Land and so law enforcement was part of Federal government, from Day One.

[Reily]

“..In 1908, TR’s AG Bonaparte directed a reorganization of 38 investigators scattered in offices of the Justice Department into one office and chief.
Beginning in 1909, that reorganization was funded by Congress under the name “Bureau of Investigation”. ...”

One of the things driving the creation of the Bureau of Investigation was enforcement of the Mann Act (White Slave Trade Act) which local LEOs either couldn’t or wouldn’t (Due to local corruption!) enforce.

The Mann Act was to counter the child-trafficking of its day.

[ProgressingAmerica]

#2 Conservation and Environment:
• Teddy Roosevelt created five national parks, established 150 national forests, 51 federal bird reserves, and 18 national monuments.
• Donald Trump signed his 2018 executive order for Coral Reef Protection & restoration, 2018 Marine Debris Act to clean up debris on beaches and in oceans, and Trump's 2020 Great American Outdoors Act funded maintenance of national parks & public lands.
  At least as important: Trump also offered Federal support for major water infrastructure projects in California!!
  Tragically, that support was rejected by California's woke state government.

This one forces us to bring up your omitted line item #12:

#12 Executive Orders:
• Theodore Roosevelt, an out of control kingly president, issued over 1000 executive orders as President.
• Donald Trump, a non-progressive, issued only 220. And of those 220, many were simply rolling back the actions of other previous out of control kingly progressive-minded presidents.

Here is a chart of the Presidents by EO up to 1908.(click for larger)

All the modern issues we have with the BLM today, all of that goes back to this. Now Trump is just about to be inaugurated #2 and he's planning more executive actions. What are most of these actions in substance? They are rolling back the actions of other previous out of control kingly progressive-minded presidents, once again. He isn't centralizing the way Roosevelt did. Roosevelt was a centralizer. You cannot deny this.

Thus, your contention is equally as bogus. Donald Trump did violence to Theodore Roosevelt's legacy with respect to this. Donald Trump also does violence to your 11 point list with this. Trump reduced the size and scope of federal government with his action, but Roosevelt increased government. Your #11 is contradicted with this #2, both with naked land grabs and with executive orders.

Teddy Roosevelt Is Rolling Over in His Grave

Roosevelt was a huge centralizer with respect to land. That cannot be stated of Trump. Merely taking care of what the government already has is not centralization. I cannot name anything Trump is a centralizer of during his presidency, and it certainly isn't land.

And just to tie the two parts of this post together, Trump even had executive orders looking to roll back one very specific out of control president.

That out of control president's name was Theodore Roosevelt.

This is the thing you clearly do not understand. Under Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act was a darling. Roosevelt is rightly linked to the whole conservation thing because very little was more dear to him than this. As a progressive, it simply would not compute to TR that there could be abusive behavior in regard to the Antiquities Act.

Trump, not being a big government guy, recognized the abuses and acted accordingly. (EO 13792) His non-progressive-ideological view made the recognition even possible to begin with.

That's the difference between a progressive and a non-progressive right there. Intent is everything. Intent to nationalize words. Intent to nationalize the lands. Intent to put government into total control of industry. Trump does not intend any of that.

Donald Trump does not live and breathe government the way Roosevelt lived and breathed government.

Donald Trump did have results in doing violence to Theodore Roosevelt's legacy, but that's not the big issue. Donald Trump intended to do violence to Theodore Roosevelt's legacy. The intent is much, much bigger. Without any doubt: intent, intent, intent.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"In 1908, TR's AG Bonaparte directed....."

No. You are being dishonest again. According to the FBI, Theodore Roosevelt directed AG Bonaparte to direct a reorganization (etc etc continued)

Stop.

Lying.

About.

This.

President Theodore Roosevelt Takes Action

It was further asserted that President Roosevelt directed Bonaparte to create an investigative service within the Department of Justice subject to no other department or bureau, which would report to no one except the Attorney General. It is considered thoroughly reliable that this was the incident which resulted in the formation of the Bureau of Investigation of the United States Department of Justice.

Enough with your lies already. King Teddy I created the FBI out of thin air. Stop it.

Why do you keep ignoring the FBI's own website on this? Why is keeping yourself in a reality distortion bubble so terribly important to you? It's the FBI's own website, why won't you listen to it?

It doesn't make any sense why you won't listen to the FBI's own website. Its time for you to come back to reality.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "This one forces us to bring up your omitted line item #12:

#12 Executive Orders: Theodore Roosevelt, an out of control kingly president, issued over 1000 executive orders as President. Donald Trump, a non-progressive, issued only 220.
And of those 220, many were simply rolling back the actions of other previous out of control kingly progressive-minded presidents."

So, the first thing to notice is that Trump's EO count is set to double in the first week of his second term.
At that rate, Trump could well end up with 1,000 EOs total by the end of his second term.

Second point is that "kingly" Teddy Roosevelt, at ~1,005 was far from the most active with EOs -- others with equal numbers, or more included:

1. 1,005 Teddy Roosevelt (7.5 years)
2. .. 696 Howard Taft (4 years)
3. 1,767 Woodrow Wilson (8 years)
4. 1,749 Harding & Coolidge (8 years)
5. 1,001 Herbert Hoover (4 years)
6. 3,734 Franklin Roosevelt (12+ years)
7. .. 907 Harry Truman (8- years)

As you can see, "kingly" TR's 1,005 EOs were matched or exceeded by at least six other administrations since then.

Among recent presidents with relatively few EOs are:

1. 484 Eisenhower (8 years)
2. 565 Kennedy-Johnson (8 years)
3. 515 Nixon-Ford (8 years)
4. 320 Carter (4 years)
5. 381 Reagan (8 years)
6. 364 Clinton (8 years)
7. 291 GW Bush (8 years)
8. 276 Obama (8 years)
9. 220 Trump (4 years)
10. 160 Biden (4 years)
11. ~100 Trump Day One second term

So, it's not at all clear why some presidents issued over 1,000 EOs while others just a small fraction of that number.
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with either party or ideology.
And, if Pres. Trump can use executive orders to Make American Great Again, I don't know why I might object to that.

ProgressingAmerica: "Now Trump is just about to be inaugurated #2 and he's planning more executive actions.
What are most of these actions in substance?
They are rolling back the actions of other previous out of control kingly progressive-minded presidents, once again.
He isn't centralizing the way Roosevelt did.
Roosevelt was a centralizer.
You cannot deny this."

I'd say "centralizing" is a matter of perspective, for examples,
if Pres. Trump uses executive orders (EOs) to:

1. Send the US military to guard our Southern border, is that "centralizing" or not?

2. Overrule states' "sanctuary cities" laws, is that "centralizing" or not.

3. End birthright citizenship, is that "centralizing" or not?

4. Send US forces to put down insurrections in cities like Portland, Oregon, is that "centralizing" or not?

5. Unilaterally halt all refugee admissions into the US, is that "centralizing" or not?

6. Require illegal immigrants to register and be fingerprinted, is that "centralizing" or not?

7. Deport millions of illegal immigrants, is that "centralizing" or not?

8. Direct energy companies to "Drill Baby Drill", is that "centralizing" or not?

9. Direct states to have enough lethal injection drugs on hand, is that "centralizing" or not?

10. Unilaterally impose new tariffs on foreign countries, is that "centralizing" or not?

11. Change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, is that "centralizing" or not?

ProgressingAmerica: "Your #11 is contradicted with this #2, both with naked land grabs and with executive orders."

What are you talking about?

1. #2 in post 18 simply says that both TR and TRump took actions to protect our environment through creation & maintenance of national monuments and parks.

2. #11 simply points out that both TR and TRump reduced the size of Federal government relative to GDP.
   In TR's case, Federal spending fell from 3.6% to 2.5% of GDP, while TRump reduced federal spending from 23.5% to 20.5% of GDP, pre-Covid.
   I also pointed out the obvious -- that there is a 10 times growth in Federal spending today versus under Teddy Roosevelt.
   So, if TR was a "king", then he was a mighty frugal one -- indeed, the most frugal we've had since the Civil War.

Bears Ears National Monument -- Obama/Biden vs Trump:

ProgressingAmerica: "Trump, not being a big government guy, recognized the abuses and acted accordingly. (EO 13792) His non-progressive-ideological view made the recognition even possible to begin with."

But EO13792 had nothing to do with Teddy Roosevelt, and everything to do with Barak Obama's last-minute designation of Bears Ears and other National Monuments.
In the case of Bears Ears, Trump rolled back Obama's 1.35 million acres to 200,000 acres, protecting what was vital, while allowing normal uses of the remainder.

TR himself only protected areas he considered essential, while allowing normal activities everywhere else.

ProgressingAmerica: "That's the difference between a progressive and a non-progressive right there.
Intent is everything.
Intent to nationalize words."

I've already pointed out the truth of this matter --"nationalize words" -- once to you.
How many more times do I have to tell you before your intentions to lie regardless become obvious?

In fact, what TR did was order the US Federal printing office to use simplified spellings on about 300 words, about half of which were already commonly spelled that way -- the example is American "honor" versus the English spelling of "honour".
This was an action the German government had recently taken regarding some German words, and was totally within TR's authority as US Chief Executive.
However, in TR's case, both Congress and Supreme Court objected to some of the new spellings and so he withdrew them -- no harm, no foul.

We might notice that Pres. TRump is also changing our language -- by renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.
On whose authority -- the Constitution's??

ProgressingAmerica: "Donald Trump does not live and breathe government the way Roosevelt lived and breathed government."

That was certainly true in 2016.
Today, after all his struggles to overcome the weaponized Deep State, not so much anymore.
Today, TRump has very clear ideas about how he intends to reform and restructure our Federal government, changes which will hopefully be as consequential, or more so, than anything Teddy Roosevelt accomplished.

ProgressingAmerica: "Donald Trump intended to do violence to Theodore Roosevelt's legacy.
The intent is much, much bigger.
Without any doubt: intent, intent, intent."

Now you're just pretending to read Trump's mind, when the reality is that TRump has never denigrated TR in any way.
Your basic problem is that you misunderstand and misrepresent TR's actions and so put them at odds with TRump.
I'm saying the real problem here is inside your own mind, not with either TR or TRump.

TRump & TR together...

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "In 1908, TR's AG Bonaparte directed....."

ProgressingAmerica: "No.
You are being dishonest again.
According to the FBI, Theodore Roosevelt directed AG Bonaparte to direct a reorganization (etc etc continued)"

Naw, you're just being ridiculous.
Obviously, Bonaparte acted under TR's directions, but the fact remains that his actions were 100% routine, lawful and constitutional, not some radical change from past precedents or laws.

ProgressingAmerica:

"Stop.

Lying.

About.

This."

Now you're just speaking to yourself in your mirror.

ProgressingAmerica: "Enough with your lies already.
King Teddy I created the FBI out of thin air.
Stop it."

Seriously, it's time for you to stop lying about this.
The fact is that TR did nothing more than reorganize 38 existing investigators within the justice department -- he moved some offices around.
Everything else -- the name BOI, congressional funding, J Edgar Hoover, James Comey, corruption and weaponization against political opponents -- all that came later, some of it much later.

Why do you keep lying when the truth is so clear and obvious?

I get that you'd love to blame "King Teddy" for J Edgar Hoover and James Comey, but that's just ridiculous.
Hoover joined the BOI under Democrat Wilson, Comey was appointed Director by Democrat Obama:

[ProgressingAmerica]

Now, where were we. Oh yeah, the last two weeks of watching a small government President act on doing small government things has been quite refreshing.

Bummer, now we have to discuss a big government president again. sigh.

"As you can see, "kingly" TR's 1,005 EOs were matched or exceeded by at least six other administrations since then."

That's how precedents go once they are set - Roe didn't become Roe in a vacuum it rested on the precedent of Griswold v Connecticut. Don't forget I didn't just comment on the total number. I also commented on the quality of said EOs. TR's intent was no different than Obama's pen and phone: to end-run around congress and find some way, any way, even a desperate ploy if needed, as long as it will increase the size and scope of the federal government. Because like Obama, TR worshipped big massive government.

"I'd say "centralizing" is a matter of perspective"

Of course you would. Hence our disagreements.

As to the items you listed, the Executive branch ultimately has jurisdiction over border security. Unfortunately, what states like Texas did were unconstitutional. It needed to be done to be sure to keep Americans safe from people sneaking in the middle of the night and Biden doing nothing about it, but from a purely constitutional construct Texas was in fact in the wrong. Border security is not a state issue.

"simply says that both TR and TRump took actions to protect our environment"

TR took actions to grow government. The environment is minor footnote.

"#11 simply points out that both TR and TRump reduced the size of Federal government relative to GDP."

Relating the size of government to GDP is a wicked and deceitful game. Constitutionally, the government only has the powers that it has until an amendment is issued. The rest is unconstitutional, out of control, and centralizing.

"TR himself only protected areas he considered"

Listen to the language you use. Oh, "he" considered. Really. "He himself" It's just sick. I keep expecting you to use the phrase "Dear Leader" of your precious, but I know you won't want to tip your hand in so obvious a way.

"Now you're just pretending to read Trump's mind"

I read the link. Which you refuse to do.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Let me just ask you this question. What am I supposed to do with this piece of information in the context of understanding who this president was?

I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce. - Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, pate 560

https://archive.org/details/theodorerooseve07roosgoog/page/559/mode/2up

Did you notice the "always"? I'll tell you what I'm NOT supposed to do with this, and that's ignore it. I'm also NOT supposed to make excuses for it, or dissemble over it.

What do I do from this what can we learn from this?

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "Now, where were we.
Oh yeah, the last two weeks of watching a small government President act on doing small government things has been quite refreshing.
Bummer, now we have to discuss a big government president again. sigh."

So, you are obviously suffering from a severe case of TrDS, similar to TDS, but projected backwards into history.
Regardless, the fact remains that your alleged "Big Government" Teddy Roosevelt's Federal workforce was only 10% the size of "Small Government" Donald Trump's.

Again, let's compare "Big Government" TR to "Small Government" TRump:

1. Under "Big Government" TR Federal spending fell from 3.6% of GDP under McKinley (1899) to 2.3% under TR (1905-1908).
   Under "Small Government" TRump, Federal spending fell from 23.5% of GDP under Obama to 20.5% under TRump (pre-Covid).

2. Under "Big Government" TR, in 8 years, the US population grew 20% and Federal non-military employment grew 10%.
   Under "Small Government" TRump, in 4 years, the US population grew 2% and Federal non-military employment grew 1%.

3. Under "Big Government" TR, in 8 years, the US GDP grew by 64%.
   Under "Small Government" TRump, in 4 years, the US GDP grew 15%.

Of course, Pres. Trump's second term could be a very different story, we'll see, but in the meantime, I think it's deliberate blindness to ignore the reality behind all your anti-TR nonsense.

ProgressingAmerica: "Don't forget I didn't just comment on the total number.
I also commented on the quality of said EOs.
TR's intent was no different than Obama's pen and phone: to end-run around congress and find some way, any way, even a desperate ploy if needed, as long as it will increase the size and scope of the federal government.
Because like Obama, TR worshipped big massive government."

According to news reports, Democrat Deep Staters are preparing massive lawsuits against most or all of Pres. Trump's hundreds of new Executive Orders.
In Congress, Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct TRump's appointees and agenda.
We'll see how many of TRump's new EOs will hold up against such assaults, but any that fail will be labeled a "desperate ploy" by victorious Democrats.

ProgressingAmerica: "As to the items you listed, the Executive branch ultimately has jurisdiction over border security. Unfortunately, what states like Texas did were unconstitutional...
... from a purely constitutional construct Texas was in fact in the wrong.
Border security is not a state issue."

That is such an odd thing for a supposed Constitutional "strict constructionist" to say, since, in reality, the US Constitution nowhere prohibits states from defending their borders against foreign invasions or domestic violence.
Indeed, the Constitution specifically authorizes "Militia(s) of the several States", whose normal purposes can only be to defend against such eventualities.

The Constitution's "militias" are today's state National Guards, of which there are today roughly 450,000 serving in all 50 states.
Of those, about 21,000 serve in the Texas National Guard, of which up to 10,000 have been deployed under state command to the Texas border under Operation Lone Star.

ProgressingAmerica: "TR took actions to grow government.
The environment is minor footnote."

That's just TR Derangement Syndrome (TrDS) luny-talk.
The fact is that TR cared about the environment and took actions to protect it.
All of Teddy Roosevelt's environmental actions were authorized by Congress and none were later revoked by either Congress, SCOTUS or future presidents.

ProgressingAmerica: "Relating the size of government to GDP is a wicked and deceitful game.
Constitutionally, the government only has the powers that it has until an amendment is issued.
The rest is unconstitutional, out of control, and centralizing."

All your TrDS nonsense notwithstanding, the fact remains that none of Teddy Roosevelt's actions was ever declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS, Congress or future presidents.
Sure, I understand that you think TR's actions were unconstitutional, but your opinions and about $4 will buy you a Cappuccino at Starbucks.
Enjoy!

The fact also remains that comparing government spending to GDP is the only way to make sense of numbers today versus 125 and 250 years ago.
Yet again, the averages:

1. 1.9% of GDP = Pres. Washington Federal Spending
2. 1.7% under Pres. Jefferson
3. 3.9% under Pres. Madison (war peak)
4. 2.6% under Pres. Monroe
5. 2.0% under Pres. Jackson
6. 13% under Pres. Lincoln (war peak)
7. 3.8% under Pres. Grant (reconstruction)
8. 2.9% under Pres. Cleveland
9. 3.6% under Pres. McKinley (war peak)
10. 2.3% under Pres. Teddy Roosevelt
11. 40% under Pres. Franklin Roosevelt (war peak)
12. 18.5% under Pres. Eisenhower
13. 22.9% under Pres. Reagan (cold war peak)
14. 18.3% under Pres. Clinton/Speaker Gingrich
15. 20.5% under Pres. Trump (pre-Covid)
16. 24% under Pres. Biden

By such measures, Pres. Teddy Roosevelt's government was far more in line with our Founding Fathers than he was with any Democrat, Republican or Progressive administration since then.

ProgressingAmerica: "Listen to the language you use.
Oh, "he" considered.
Really.
"He himself"
It's just sick.
I keep expecting you to use the phrase "Dear Leader" of your precious, but I know you won't want to tip your hand in so obvious a way."

Now you're just babbling TrDS nonsense.
The facts are that all of TRs actions were authorized by Congress and, when challenged in Federal courts, passed constitutional muster.
None have been revoked or seriously modified by future presidents.

Pres. Trump himself has issued hundreds of Executive Orders and nearly 1,000 other Executive Actions, many of which will be challenged in courts and by Democrats in Congress.

Bottom line: Sure, I understand that you'd like to return to an earlier time, "when men were men..." and the US Constitution was more respected than it is today -- certainly everyone posting on Free Republic wants that.
But what is realistic or even possible is a very different matter.

If Pres. Trump succeeds in reducing Federal spending from Biden's $trillions-in-deficit 24% of GDP back to, say, the budget-in-surplus 18% under Eisenhower or Clinton/Gingrich, and if he can keep the peace while eliminating some agencies, maybe even a department or two, then Trump will deserve a place on Mount Rushmore, perhaps next to Teddy Roosevelt?

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK #34: "We would be lucky to have such a leader again.
And, as it happens, we do, or will, starting tomorrow..."

ProgressingAmerica: "None of this is true.
You say I’m incorrect then two paragraphs down you turn around and say I was correct after all.
Take your pick.
But it can only be one."

Again, you're hallucinating.
That's not what I said in post #34.

Hopefully, you'll identify the correct target in another post?

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "BroJoeK tells ProgressingAmerica: "Federal anti-trust actions did not begin with Teddy Roosevelt." essentially claiming "P.A., you are a liar"
Two paragraphs down:
BroJoeK tells ProgressingAmerica: "Roosevelt was the first to use those laws as they were intended" essentially claiming "P.A., you are telling the truth""

So, take a breath.
To be clear, here is my exact quote:

"Federal anti-trust actions did not begin with Teddy Roosevelt.
They began with:
1. 1887 Interstate Commerce Act under Democrat Pres. Grover Cleveland.
2. 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act under Republican Pres. Benjamin Harrison.
3. 1902 Northern Securities Anti-Trust case prosecuted under Republican Pres. Teddy Roosevelt.
So, by the time of TR's first anti-trust case, laws authorizing Federal actions had been on the books for 15 years.
Roosevelt was the first to [fully] use those laws as they were intended, and his actions were confirmed by the US Supreme Court (Northern Securities Co. v. United States) on March 14, 1904."

Sorry, if I had suspected you'd misunderstand my words, I'd have added more to clarify them.
The laws TR used in 1902 had been on the books for 15 years and had been enforced by three previous administrations, though not with the energy Roosevelt applied to them.

The fact is that Federal anti-trust actions began with laws passed under Democrat Cleveland and Republican Harrison, which were not so vigorously enforced by them, or McKinley, but neither were those laws entirely ignored.
Even without strict enforcement, those laws had substantial benefits in setting standards for legal behavior that most American businesses complied with.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: " Let us compare these three men:

• Wisconsin's Fighting Bob LaFollette wanted more government
• King Teddy I wanted more government
• Donald Trump wants less government."

So, let's look a little closer:

1. Wisconsin Sen. LaFollette served in the US Senate from 1906 until his death in 1925.
   During those 19 years, Federal spending increased from 2.3% of GDP under Pres. Teddy Roosevelt to 4% under Pres. Silent Cal Coolidge.

2. Pres. Teddy Roosevelt served as US president from 1901 to 1909.
   During those 7+ years, Federal spending fell from 3.1% of GDP (McKinley's average) to 2.1% and averaged 2.3%.

3. Pres. Trump 45 served from 2017 to 2021.
   During those 4 years (pre-Covid), Federal spending fell from 23.5% to 20.5% of GDP.
   In 2020, Federal spending rose to 30% of GDP.

For Pres. Trump to reduce Federal government back to a balanced budget/surplus of 18% achieved by Eisenhower and by Clinton/Gingrich, he will need to eliminate $2 trillion per year -- hence D.O.G.E.
Let's hope he can do it.

But 18% of GDP is still about 8 times higher than the 2.3% achieved under Pres. Teddy Roosevelt.

Of course, I'm not blaming Trump for that, I'm only saying, don't blame Teddy Roosevelt for the actions of many presidents & Congresses who came later.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "What am I supposed to do with this piece of information in the context of understanding who this president was?

'I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce.'
- Theodore Roosevelt, 1913 Autobiography, page 560"

I think that, by "complete power", TR is referring to Federal oversight versus state oversight, and this is based on the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, granting Congress complete power:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

ProgressingAmerica: "What do I do from this what can we learn from this?"

Context, context, context.
TR's autobiography was written in 1913, after his unsuccessful run for president as a Progressive Bull Mooser.
So, it certainly reflects his views of that time, but not necessarily the way he governed while president, from 1901 to 1908.

My argument here can be summarized as follows: you are looking at Teddy Roosevelt backwards through history -- as the beginning of a long series of events which took the US from what it was in 1900 to what it is today -- and you seek to blame TR for everything bad which happened after his terms of office, 1901 to 1908.

I'm saying that TR does not deserve blame for what many others did long after he was dead, and that nearly all of what TR actually did as president has been confirmed by Congress, SCOTUS, later presidents and in the courts of public opinion.
So, all the nonsense about a "King Teddy" is just as ridiculous as referring to our current president as "King Donny".

Sure, it's what Democrats always do, but why should we?

I'm just not buying it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Wow. This was the danciest of dances yet.

"I think that, by "complete power", TR is referring to Federal oversight versus state oversight"

We can definitely agree on this one. TR loved him some big government.

"and this is based on the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, granting Congress complete power:"

LOL.... right, right. That means then that the first 119 years of America were unconstitutional and those blasted Founders didn't know jack $heet. What the Founders really should have done is abolished the states altogether and put the fed in control right from the beginning, that would've been sweet. And! They actually would've been following the instructions of the Constitution that they wrote! How did this secret go undiscovered until the Progressive Era? It's quite amazing actually, the secrets the progressives discovered about the real actual constitution.

/sarc

"Context, context, context. TR's autobiography was written in 1913, after his unsuccessful run for president as a Progressive Bull Mooser. So, it certainly reflects his views of that time, but not necessarily the way he governed while president, from 1901 to 1908."

Of course you would do this. You necessarily have to transform "I have always believed" into conforming with whatever personality mold it needs to fit into.

Trump in two weeks has done more to shrink the size and scope of the federal government than TR ever did in 8 years.

Not.

Including.

Some deceitful "oh but the government size to GDP ratio" or whatever that nonsense was. Strictly speaking. In absolute terms. Trump in two weeks has done more to shrink the size and scope of the federal government than TR ever did in 8 years. We don't need gimmicks nor tricks to say it.

"and you seek to blame TR for everything bad which happened after his terms of office, 1901 to 1908."

No, I don't. You have manufactured this because you need it. I have no need for that. Recognition of precedent is a wholly different think than you suggest.

"So, all the nonsense about a "King Teddy" is just as ridiculous as referring to our current president as "King Donny"."

A government shrinker cannot be referred to as a King. Kings are centralizers and tyrants. Try again.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"We'll see how many of TRump's new EOs will hold up against such assaults, but any that fail will be labeled a "desperate ploy" by victorious Democrats."

I really do not care what the democrats will label them as.

The fact remains, Trump modifies government size this way:

That is, he is fighting with everything he has to have it go downwards and make it smaller. That's green, that's good, that's what we need, and these facts stand strong and proud regardless of what you have to say about it, what I have to say about it, what the democrats have to say about it. Trump is shrinking government. That's not arguable.

Contrary to Roosevelt, who modified government size this way:

Up, bigger. That's the Roosevelt legacy. Trump in two weeks has done more to shrink the size and scope of the federal government than TR ever did in 8 years. Even you're not saying TR was a shrinker, you've kooked up this bizarre rationalization: "Size and scope of Federal government, relative to US GDP".

No. It got bigger. Relating it to GDP is dishonest, it's a coverup, a scam. I'm not buying this hoax. The comparison remains: With one man as president, size and scope increased. With the other, in just two weeks even, its being chopped down to size. You notice I have no need to rationalize? Watch this: Trump is making government smaller. See that? No rationalizations. Smaller is smaller is smaller. It's just that beautiful. No asterisks and no heming and hawing. You see that? No asterisks. Trump is a lumberjack and in this comparison (see post 1) he stands alone cutting the government tree down to size.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I see headlines like these two headlines and I think to myself,

Nobody would ever confuse this for Theodore Roosevelt.

Trump and Musk’s dismantling of government is shaking the foundations of US democracy [barf alert]
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4296031/posts

Trump administration finalizing plans to shutter Education Department
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4294760/posts

Now, I could potentially confuse these with Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge though. Two wonderful small government presidents, BTW.

[BroJoeK]

Progressingamerica: "LOL.... right, right.
That means then that the first 119 years of America were unconstitutional and those blasted Founders didn't know jack $heet.
What the Founders really should have done is abolished the states altogether and put the fed in control right from the beginning, that would've been sweet.
And! They actually would've been following the instructions of the Constitution that they wrote!
How did this secret go undiscovered until the Progressive Era?
It's quite amazing actually, the secrets the progressives discovered about the real actual constitution."

Seriously? Why are you babbling nonsense?

The fact is that Congress did regulate interstate commerce, beginning in 1789:

1. 1789 -- "Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade...", Pres. Washington
   Required interstate commerce to be carried on ships built & owned by Americans.

2. 1818 -- Navigation Act, Pres. Monroe
   Increased requirements for interstate commerce to be carried in ships that were built, owned and crewed by Americans.

3. 1886 -- Passenger Service Act, Pres. Cleveland
   Ships that transport passengers between & among states must be American built, owned and crewed.

4. 1887 -- Interstate Commerce Act, Pres. Cleveland
   Regulates railroad monopolies, requiring railroad rates be "reasonable and just".

5. 1890 -- Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Pres. B. Harrison
   Named for Ohio Republican Sen. John Sherman, prohibits unfair monopolies.

6. 1893 -- Harter Act, Pres. Cleveland
   Defined requirements and limitations of shippers' & carriers' liabilities.

7. 1896 -- Oil Pipeline Act, Pres. Cleveland
   Required oil pipeline companies to register with the Department of Interior to receive rights of way on public lands.
   Succeeded by the 1906 Hepburn act (TR), which regulated interstate pipelines.

8. 1898 -- Erdman Act, Pres. McKinley
   Regulated interstate railroad labor disputes.

9. 1899 -- Rivers and Harbors Act, Pres. McKinley
   Environmental laws prohibiting discharging waste into US rivers & harbors.

These laws, and others, prove that Congress did indeed constitutionally regulate interstate commerce in the years before your "King Teddy" became US president in 1901.

Progressingamerica: "Trump in two weeks has done more to shrink the size and scope of the federal government than TR ever did in 8 years."

Sure, I appreciate your enthusiasm for Pres. Trump's leadership, but the fact is that:

1. 2025 -- Pres. Trump's offered buy-out of Federal employees has received only 65,000 acceptances to date.
   65,000 of the 2,400,000 total non-military Federal work force is only 3%.

2. 1993 -- Pres. Clinton offered a similar buy-out of Federal employees and that received over 185,000 acceptances from a Federal workforce of 1,266,000 or 15%.

Another way to look at it is in terms of US population per Federal employee (non-military, non-postal),
approximate numbers:

1. 1901 -- 500 Americans per Federal employee -- Pres. McKinley.

2. 1910 -- 350 Americans per Federal employee -- Pres. Theodore Roosevelt/Taft.

3. 1993 -- 200 Americans per Federal employee -- Pres Clinton.

4. 2024 -- 140 Americans per Federal employee -- Pres. Biden.

For Pres. Trump to reduce the Federal government to the size it was under Pres. Teddy Roosevelt (not including military or postal workers) -- relative to the US population -- Trump will need to reduce the Federal workforce by 2/3, from 2.4 million to circa 800,000.

Progressingamerica: "A government shrinker cannot be referred to as a King.
Kings are centralizers and tyrants. Try again."

You are obviously afflicted with TR Derangement Syndrome (TrDS), likely an incurable, fatal disease you'll die with.
I highly suspect the origin of your TrDS disease is your own mis-spent youth as a Democrat, since complaining about Republican (or Federalist & Whig) "monarchists" and "dictators" is a significant part of the Democrats' stock in trade -- it's how historically they get elected.

If you grew up as a Democrat, then you may sincerely believe that all strong non-Democrat leaders are dangerous "centralizers", be they George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon or Donald Trump.
By the way, others who don't make this list are considered "dolts", "idiots" and "incompetents", i.e., Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan & the Bushes.

To my knowledge, there's no cure for TrDS, so the best we can do is try to make you comfortable in your political hospice...

😉

[ProgressingAmerica]

We have gotten pretty far in this, let's wrap them all together.

#1: Trust-Busting:
• Teddy Roosevelt took on big corporations -- i.e., JP Morgan, Standard Oil, American Tobacco -- that were unfairly abusing the public.
• Donald Trump took on big corporations -- Twitter, Facebook, TikTok -- that were unfairly abusing the public.

"took on" is wholly disingenous in this context. Roosevelt wanted to use this for the purposes of centralized planning. Trump never intended to give "complete power" to the federal government in regards to trust busting.

I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce.

Trump is never even called a "trust buster" by anybody, because that's not what he is. Nor has anybody seen in Trump's own books where he wants to give the "National Government" "complete power" over both organization and capitalization of all business. "Always believed" is "always believed" and this sort of monstrosity is just not who Trump is. TR stands alone with this filth. They are not the same.

---

2: Conservation and Environment:
• Teddy Roosevelt created five national parks, established 150 national forests, 51 federal bird reserves, and 18 national monuments.
• Donald Trump signed his 2018 executive order for Coral Reef Protection & restoration, 2018 Marine Debris Act to clean up debris on beaches and in oceans, and Trump's 2020 Great American Outdoors Act funded maintenance of national parks & public lands.
  At least as important: Trump also offered Federal support for major water infrastructure projects in California!!
  Tragically, that support was rejected by California's woke state government.

As already specified earlier with the link you refuse to read, Trump has done violence to Roosevelt's precious and arguably most beloved aspect of his legacy. You've chosen not to read the link, that's not my problem to worry about.

Teddy Roosevelt Is Rolling Over in His Grave

Trump on this matter is a pragmatist, he is not ideologically driven to grow government at all costs using the environment as a human shield to take bullets like how Hamas uses children like human shields. They are not the same.

---

3: Panama Canal:

U.S. Presidents have Commander in Chief(CIC) as their Constitutional duty. This is neither here nor there and most specifically: it speaks nothing to progressive ideology one way nor the other.

---

4: Safe Food and Drugs:
• Teddy Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act into law.
• Donald Trump in 2019 signed Executive Order 13874 --Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products -- intending to streamline approvals of new biotechnology products.
  In 2020, Trump directed the FDA to develop a list of essential medicines which must be manufactured in the USA.

Putting the government in control of food was a masterstroke on Roosevelt's part, I'm sad to say. It is likely that no president will ever have enough fortitude nor willingness to correct this error which does mean that unfortunately, the deep state will last forever. As for Trump's action you listed, it doesn't amount to much and it certainly isn't comparable to the nationalization of inspection that took place in 1906. All Trump is doing is instructing them to make a list. A boring whoop.

---

5: Law Enforcement:
• Teddy Roosevelt reformed Federal Law Enforcement
• Donald Trump will reform Federal Law Enforcement

King Teddy I created a whole brand new bureaucracy in the FBI. Trump did not create a whole brand new bureaucracy.

It should not have taken 19 responses across four threads to admit - which you did finally admit after basically digitally pulling teeth - that King Teddy the First did in fact create the FBI.

Trump did not create a whole brand new bureaucracy, they are not the same.

---

6: Peace through Strength:
7: Military experience:
8: US Navy:

Again, President, Constitution, CIC.

---

9: International Relations:
• Teddy Roosevelt negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 -- for which he won a Nobel Peace Prize -- and also a Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan in 1907.
  
• Donald Trump intends to negotiate an end to the Russo-Ukraine War in 2025 -- though given the sadly corrupted state of the Nobel Prize these days, that might prove unattainable for Trump.

Teddy was a globalist who loved the ICC and the Hague and he flat stated it. Trump is not a globalist, and he sanctions the ICC and the Hague. They are not the same.

ICC condemns sanctions by Trump admn

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4296121/posts

---

10: 16th Amendment:
• Teddy Roosevelt supported ratification of the 16th Amendment -- Income Taxes -- in large part to supplement & replace the old & unreliable Import Tariffs for Federal revenues.
• Donald Trump supports the threat of higher import tariffs to protect US manufacturing jobs and increase Federal revenues.
  Trump also supports lower business taxes to encourage domestic and foreign investments in American business jobs.

It took you months to admit that TR created the FBI despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, even from the FBI itself. It's not worth my time if you want to hold on to the delusion that the income tax and amendment just poofed itself into existence out of thin air and nobody anybody anywhere is to blame.

But the fact remains. Trump is out there talking about abolishing the income tax. That puts him at exact opposite, once again, of King Teddy I.

Trump keeps kicking you in the neck, you ever notice that BroJoeK? You want to cast Trump as a big-government president like your hero, but then aw man here Trump comes again making government smaller. Why's he gotta do to that to you?

Is Donald Trump Abolishing Income Tax? What We Know

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/is-donald-trump-abolishing-income-tax-what-we-know/ar-AA1y0ULC

Trump wants to abolish King Teddy I's precious graduated income tax. They are not the same.

---

11: Size and Scope of Federal Government:
• Under Teddy Roosevelt, Federal spending fell from 3.6% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP, largely because US GDP had increased by 64%.
• Under Donald Trump, Federal spending fell from 23.5% of GDP to 20.5% of GDP (pre-Covid).

The invention of a bizarre metric is proof of guilt. You're not saying TR "didn't grow government", you're trying to get around having to be honest using GDP as a Hamas human shield. It's also contradictory with #1. Growing government power in trust busting to try to centrally plan doesn't necessarily have to have a budgetary influence. It is additionally contradictory when factoring in price controls. It doesn't matter that Congress gave Teddy what he wanted, the fact is he wanted it and couldn't wait to use his new scope. (Size and scope)

Under Trump we have reverse things: Trump is at least attempting to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.(and he is doing these things in major ways) Under King Teddy, either government did get bigger or the King attempted to increase the size and scope and got blocked such as on the spelling. They are once again, not the same.

Trump tries to shrink government, Trump may fail to shrink government. Teddy tries to grow government, Teddy may have failed to grow government.

Teddy = growth.

Trump = shrink.

They are not the same.

---

#12 Executive Orders:
• Theodore Roosevelt, an out of control kingly president, issued over 1000 executive orders as President.
• Donald Trump, a non-progressive, issued only 220. And of those 220, many were simply rolling back the actions of other previous out of control kingly progressive-minded presidents.

As of now, two or perhaps really two and a half weeks in, Trump is still mainly rolling back previous progressivism.

And he's still making government smaller.

Here is a prediction. Guess what Trump is going to try to do tomorrow?

Make government smaller once again. That is not progressivism. Theodore Roosevelt is progressivism.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "Teddy Roosevelt took on big corporations.
Donald Trump took on big corporations"

ProgressingAmerica: " 'took on' is wholly disingenous in this context.
Roosevelt wanted to use this for the purposes of centralized planning.
Trump never intended to give "complete power" to the federal government in regards to trust busting."

"I have always believed that it would also be necessary to give the National Government complete power over the organization and capitalization of all business concerns engaged in inter-State commerce." -- TR's autobiography 1913.

To be clear, not everything you post here is complete nonsense -- some of it is perfectly valid, so my task is to separate out the "wheat from the chaff".
In this particular case, I've seen no evidence, ever, that Teddy Roosevelt was a Marxist-style statist & central planner.
I do note where TR allied with socialist Herbert Croly for his failed 1912 presidential run as a Bull Moose Progressive.
However, that alliance ended already in 1913 because of Croly's radical views that TR didn't accept.
At no time during his presidency did TR refer to himself as a "Progressive" -- at least that I can find.

ProgressingAmerica: "Trump is never even called a "trust buster" by anybody, because that's not what he is.
Nor has anybody seen in Trump's own books where he wants to give the "National Government" "complete power" over both organization and capitalization of all business. "

I'd say Trump has a different path to the same objective.
Consider Twitter -- a hugely powerful effective monopoly, politically active and opposed to Trump.
Trump's response was not to Trust Bust Twitter, but rather to have his friend Elon Musk buy the company and radically reform it.
Does that make Trump less aggressive towards trusts & oligarchs?
No, it only means Trump has different approaches to dealing with the same types of problems.

ProgressingAmerica: "As already specified earlier with the link you refuse to read, Trump has done violence to Roosevelt's precious and arguably most beloved aspect of his legacy."

I read your link, and what you've said about it is nonsense.
Trump has not done "violence" to anything TR did, but only reversed overreaches of recent Democrat presidents Clinton, Obama and now also Biden.
Trump is every bit as devoted to protecting nature as TR was, but, like TR, Trump will not lock away America's natural resources in the name of some radical environmental ideology.

ProgressingAmerica: "Putting the government in control of food was a masterstroke on Roosevelt's part, I'm sad to say.
It is likely that no president will ever have enough fortitude nor willingness to correct this error which does mean that unfortunately, the deep state will last forever. "

Then you understand nothing about it.
The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act both passed Congress with hugely lopsided bipartisan votes:

1906 Pure Food and Drug Act:

1. 63-4 in the Senate
2. 143-72 in the House

1906 Meat Inspection Act:

1. 43-9 in the Senate
2. 145-62 in the House

The Pure Food and Drug Act was challenged on Constitutional grounds and decided by SCOTUS in Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States (1911): it's an entirely constitutional exercise of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The Meat Inspection Act was also challenged and ruled constitutional in the case of United States v. P. D. Armour & Co. in 1907.

Bottom line: the US Constitution expressly grants Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress exercised that power beginning in 1789.
In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, signed by the President and later ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS.

Because of that, there is no rational argument I can think of to claim such laws are "unconstitutional" or "illegal" or "illegitimate" in any way.

ProgressingAmerica: "As for Trump's action you listed, it doesn't amount to much and it certainly isn't comparable to the nationalization of inspection that took place in 1906.
All Trump is doing is instructing them to make a list.
A boring whoop."

It's only "boring" if you missed the point -- Trump is not attacking or reversing TR's actions, far from it.
Rather Trump actions support and confirm TR's.

ProgressingAmerica: "King Teddy I created a whole brand new bureaucracy in the FBI.
Trump did not create a whole brand new bureaucracy.
It should not have taken 19 responses across four threads to admit - which you did finally admit after basically digitally pulling teeth - that King Teddy the First did in fact create the FBI."

No, you still misunderstand.
I've consistently said that TR did not create the FBI, much less did he appoint J.Edgar Hoover or James Comey to corrupt and politicize it -- far from it.

What TR did instead in his final months in office was: he reorganized existing investigators within the Justice Department into a single office under one authority.
The name "Bureau of Investigation", separate funding from Congress, J.Edgar Hoover and James Comey all came later, some of it much later, and under Democrat presidents.

There were Federal investigators in the Justice Department and in the Treasury's Secret Service long before TR became president.
Yes, TR somewhat reorganized them, but that does not make him to blame for the corruption and politization we've seen from the FBI in decades since then.

ProgressingAmerica: "Teddy was a globalist who loved the ICC and the Hague and he flat stated it.
Trump is not a globalist, and he sanctions the ICC and the Hague.
They are not the same."

Now you are seriously hallucinating, since the ICC in the Hague was first established in 2002, some 83 years after TR passed away in 1919.
Blaming TR for the ICC is a pure flight of fantasy.

Of course, if you wish to blame TR for Democrat Pres. Wilson's League of Nations, then, at least, you'd be in the correct century!
But then the burden would fall on you to find where Wilson himself credited TR for Wilson's League of Nations ideas.
I don't think you can do that.

In fact, TR's attitude toward the League of Nations almost exactly matches Trump's ideas about the United Nations: sure, it is fine as a place for nations to meet and debate issues, but it can never become an excuse for Americans to abandon our basic commitments to Peace Through Strength.