Posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:25 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Was Roosevelt a good president?
Posted: June 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.
Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.
However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.
Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?
If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.
Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.
My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.
Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.
"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.
I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.
He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.
"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.
Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?
Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.
It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.
But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.
Or, alternatively, the Bush Administration needs to get over its efforts to emulate Franklin Roosevelt. Maybe it's fine with you, but I can't afford all that federal spending!
But Reagan, Gingrich, and Dole all described FDR as a "hero" to them.
A big mega bump to that comment.
And not only a welfare state but one he created to ensure his re-election. Its almost sinister that his New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and brainwashed the "greatest generation" into believing that government was the solution to all of life's problems. The great thing is that we're all still paying for it! Yeah...what a great president. And no...I don't give him credit for his "leadership" during WWII either...Ike did most of the headwork and had the final say on day to day critical decisions, FDR was more of a puppet in that capacity. From an American perspective...he may have been the worst president ever.
Oh, but FDR DID try to micromanage WW2.
If you can, you should see if you can listen to any of those phony-baloney "fireside chats" that came over the radio at us during that time.
FDR sometimes spent the entire broadcast whining about being up all night worrying about how many troops he sent hither and how many troops he sent yon.
He and his administration officials brought socialism in in a big way, which really appealed to the "have-nots." He introduced the concept that people didn't have to work because "the gubmint" would tke care of them. NEW DEAL!
So did Lincoln, who rejected the foreign bank's offer to fund the civil war and instead, reasoned that if we were going to owe, we may as well owe ourselves. So he printed the greenback.
And JFK took it a step further and started issuing redeemable silver certificates, which were promptly removed from circulation after his demise. Both presidents were assassinated -- a coincidence that should be factored in by historians.
Was if FDR who said, 'In politics, there are no coincidences?' Heh.
"2. He blamed it, however, on the Jewish race. The individual German shopkeeper was just as much a victim as anyone else. (Remember the ruinous inflation of the 20s which allowed Hitler to get a foothold to begin with?). So it doesn't matter what the geneology of the international bankers is or was. The little people are all victims.
"3. He threatened the Jewish race in Europe as a CONSEQUENCE of war, not an inevitability. Again, this was a useless threat because the int'l bankers would not care about the individual Jewish person any more than they would about any other individual person.
An excellent analogy for how Islamo/fascist-terrorists have so little regard for the rest of the Islam nation. Yes, I agree. It's not a race thing. It's a sickness of the super-elite and the power-mad who could care less about their own race, except for their value as fodder and pawns.
"4. Although Jewish people were unjustifiably harrassed before the war broke out, the Final Solution began AFTER the war started, in 1942. Hitler, unfortunately, tried to keep his part of the threat made in the speech."
And if if may digress and carry the analogy a little further, it could be said that Islam in America is on the brink of being harrassed and is in danger of a 'final solution' here, though at this point I would have to conclude that Islam is not entirely innocent. Islam has not evolved from its error in supporting human sacrifice in the name of it's 'religion.' Even yesterday a top Koran Scholar admits to that fact and hints that France may roll up the welcome mat as well.
I think it strange that the two top problems the world faces today are a result of a battle between SOME of the descendants of two brothers -- each of whom abuse their own kin and the rest of the world in their race towards supremacy. Though one by blood, the other by money. Another coincidence I'll leave for historians to record, theologians and scholars to interpret, psycho-analysts to diagnose, and the people to remedy.
continuing . . .
Great perspective. Bookmarked for later.....
"a coincidence that should be factored in by historians"
Hmmmmm . . .
"Was if FDR who said, 'In politics, there are no coincidences?' Heh."
Hmmmmm . . .
"Yes, I agree. It's not a race thing. It's a sickness of the super-elite and the power-mad who could care less about their own race, except for their value as fodder and pawns."
Very astute summary . . .
"a battle between SOME of the descendants of two brothers"
I admit to being ignorant here: Ishmael? Isaac? Jacob?
FDR put this country on the road to hell.
LBJ removed the speed limit and closed the off-ramps.
Inaccurate statement, silver certificates predate JFK by 82 years.
[ Back ] Collector Fact Sheets Silver Certificates In accordance with an Act of Congress, dated February 28, 1878, the Department of the Treasury issued to the public Silver Certificates which could be exchanged for silver dollars. On March 25, 1964, the Secretary of the Treasury announced that Silver Certificates would no longer be redeemable for silver dollars. Subsequently, another act of Congress dated June 24, 1967, provided that Silver Certificates could be exchanged for silver bullion for a period of one year, until June 24,1968. Even though silver certificates are no longer printed, those which remain outstanding are still legal tender and can be spent just like a Federal Reserve Note.
We had paper money dating back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to Revolutionary War "Continentals" and between then and the WBTS, many states issues their own paper and banks did as well. However, Lincoln's money was the first by the Federal Govt. and it has lasted although altered a bit here and there.
If my statement was inaccurate, it was because it was understated. Some researchers claim that one of the long list of reasons JFK could have been assassinated for was because he had plans to lessen the hold of the Federal Reserve on our country. Here's a quote from one of those researchers:
"JFK was assassinated because he was going to restructure the Federal Reserve System so it could no longer be used by the ruling powers to manipulate the economy.
“Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the Constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest.
“He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 [4.3 trillion] in United States Notes through the U.S. treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one- and two-dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
“Kennedy’s comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.”
(Jim Marrs. (1989). "Crossfire: the Plot that Killed Kennedy," NY: Carroll & Graf Publishers)
Concerning the dollar issue in question which I referred to, just recently a picture of it was posted on FR within the last month or so but I can't remember the thread title or I would post the link. Perhaps someone else can.
He was a good Illuminati.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.