Founding Fathers

Theodore Roosevelt Became President On This Day In 1901: Transformation Of The American Presidency!

Ronald 1 Comment

On this day in 1901, the first year of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States upon the death of President William McKinley, who died of gunshot wounds suffered eight days earlier in Buffalo, New York, perpetrated by the assassin, Leon Czolgosz!

TR becoming President turned out to be transformational, as he became an advocate of an activist Presidency, and became a model for both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents of the future!

TR helped to make America a world power, and would be shocked at the thought of many today who would advocate withdrawing from the world.

TR would be proud of President Barack Obama in his handling of the Middle East crisis that emerged this week with the death of Christopher Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, and would be shocked at the reaction of his fellow Republican, Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Also, TR would be proud of Barack Obama for accomplishing what he first brought up as an issue a century ago–national health care for all—and would be disappointed that his party has set out to repeal “ObamaCare”!

It is clear that TR, were he alive today, would be a Democrat, not a Republican, as TR’s Progressive beliefs have been repudiated by right wing conservatives, and TR would be furious at social conservatives trying to control the American people’s private lives, and promoting religion in government, rather than the tradition of the Founding Fathers, to have separation of church and state!

And TR, were he here now, would love to punch Glenn Beck and other right wing extremists who have attacked him because he was a Progressive, who believed that government was designed to make life better for the people, not for the corporations and the wealthy!

Yes, TR had his faults, as we all do, but he stands out as one of our greatest Presidents, who might never have ascended to that job, but for the evil deed of one man, who murdered William McKinley.

Just the same, Barack Obama will not let a small band of terrorists and thugs in Libya to upend our foreign policy, and he will show resolve and principle in dealing with the issue, just as TR always did in the Presidency!

Barack Obama is a worthy successor to the heritage of Theodore Roosevelt!

The Founding Fathers And Religious Intolerance

Ronald 4 Comments

Having spent the past few days touring Presidential homes of the Founding Fathers in Virginia, it becomes ever more clear how they viewed organized religion.

All of the great Founding Fathers were born of the Christian faith, one sect or another, but all were skeptical of organized religion, being very educated and learned about the history of Christianity, which had included mass murder, bloodshed, violence, and holy wars against Islam, and promotion of antisemitism against Jews.

So George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all were not regular church goers, and in many respects were Deists, having given up on organized religious trappings.

The Adamses, John and John Quincy, also had similar views, as did Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.

If they had been here in today’s world, witnessing the bias, prejudice, and hate promoted by SOME Christian groups in the name of Jesus, they would be totally disgusted for sure!

Mitt Romney: Total Opportunist, Totally Unprincipled!

Ronald Leave a comment

So now Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has what he has wanted all of his life: to be the nominee of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States!

Now the problem is to WIN the Presidency from a man who is one of the great orators and political “animals” of the modern Presidency, right up there with Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

Each of the above had his shortcomings and weaknesses, but each knew how to inspire and motivate people, and have people believe in them and their principles.

Mitt Romney has no such problem, no such oratorical gift, no such ability to inspire and motivate people, and no principles he will not abandon in his mad dash to be President!

Mitt Romney offers himself as a chameleon who will change his views on a moment’s notice if he believes it will help promote his desire to be President!

But by being so inconsistent, so changeable, so lacking in embarrassment that he has totally changed his views and repudiated his record as Governor of Massachusetts, he makes it difficult for anyone to feel a commitment to go out there and vote for Mitt as a principled political leader who one can know how he would conduct himself as President.

Mitt Romney is phony even when he laughs, even when he tells a joke, even when he attempts to sing. One finds himself embarrassed for him, that he cannot look at tapes of himself and wince at how he appears to the American people.

This is a man of unknown quality, an intelligent man for sure, a good family man for sure, probably a lot of fun to be around in private according to his wife’s testimony, a man of strong religious principle for sure, and a man who if he was not running for President might come across as genuine if he was not seeking your vote.

But he is asking us to vote for him without having any clue as to whether he will go back to being a moderate, or remain on the right wing of the Republican Party. We do not know if he would be willing to gut the social safety network that even George W. Bush expanded. We do not know if he would be able to get along with right wing Republicans in Congress, or would be his own man and break with the extremism that they represent.

We do not know how he would shape the Supreme Court, whether he would pick moderates or make the Court so right wing that it would set us back for two generations of time.

We do not know how he would communicate with the media, and through them, with the American people on a daily basis. He certainly would have a tough act to follow, lacking the charisma and personality of Barack Obama.

Would Mitt Romney be willing to preside over the dissolution of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as we know it? Would he be unwilling to work with our European allies, and be ready to commit troops to ever continuous war in the Middle East? Would he be someone who would resist religious influence to promote an intrusion in government beyond the wishes of the Founding Fathers? Would the Mormon Church gain a special foothold in government, and be able to promote its backward, resistance to change, mentality with a Mormon in the White House, or would Romney, like John F. Kennedy, make clear that he happens to be a Mormon, but is not the Mormon President, not dedicated to the church’s advancement in a nation that is a country of all religions and also, no religious beliefs?

What it comes down to is that Mitt Romney as President would be a total “blank slate”, an unknown, who we would have no idea of what kind of President he would turn out to be.

The question is whether the American people want to gamble on a man who is so much an unknown quantity, due primarily to his chameleon nature!

The betting is clearly that the answer will be NO!

Trying To Fathom The Supreme Court On Health Care: The Court Under The Microscope

Ronald Leave a comment

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court led many observers to think that the Court is about to declare the Obama Health Care law unconstitutional this coming June.

Not so fast, ladies and gentlemen! This is hysteria and panic before the fact, with plenty of opportunity after the Court decision, if it is, indeed, negative!

Emphasis was put on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sarcastic comments about mandating broccoli, a totally ridiculous statement! But one must remember that Scalia is a showboat, a maniacal egotist who loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and get everyone’s attention, and one must remember that the Court was issuing an audio of the oral arguments immediately after the event, a very rare circumstance, and that had to be on Scalia’s mind!

Scalia was thought to be a possible vote, but if it is not, so what, as Scalia is, arguably, a hypocrite who is constantly contradictory, utilizing a broad interpretation of the Constitution, when he wishes to, and other times, pontificating on “originalism”, the idea that we must literally follow the Founding Fathers as they saw things in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.

More importantly, the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the crucial votes, and although Kennedy and Roberts both expressed some reservations about the Obama Health Care bill and the mandate contained within it, there were also key comments by both that indicated a mind open to consideration of the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy is usually the swing vote, and seemed conflicted, which can be seen as a good sign, and Roberts seemed very evenhanded, and is known to want to be in the majority, and probably write this most important decision of the past decade, and aware that the Supreme Court does not look very good in the eyes of many people based on recent cases, particularly the Citizens United Case of 2010, on top of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000.

The argument is that if Kennedy goes to the majority, then Roberts will join, and the vote would be 6-3.

And one must point out that the four defenders of the legislation were excellent in their arguments supporting the legislation, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a true intellectual, particularly outstanding in his arguments, but joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, with one more day of oral arguments, it is not time to give up on support of the legislation, and also realize that one cannot always judge how members of the Court will vote, based on oral argument alone, as often, what is being done is to test both sides in the case, and sometimes, purposely mislead on intentions, in the process of asking the lawyers in the case to defend their side.

This decision is far from certain, but progressives should feel optimistic about it at this point, and simply wait patiently to see the result, knowing that the cause is just and compassionate, and that those of us who support it are on the right side of history with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society!

Ranking Presidents Affected By Being A One Term Or Two Term President?

Ronald Leave a comment

The game of ranking Presidents is a continuous topic among historians, political scientists, journalists, and ordinary citizens.

In the upcoming June issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, Professor Curt Nichols, an assistant professor of political science at Baylor University in Texas, comes up with a new theory and premise about how Presidents are ultimately ranked in history.

Nichols used a statistical method known as regression analysis, utilizing Presidential ranking polls conducted by C Span, the Wall Street Journal, and the Siena Research Institute.

Each poll has different factors in judging Presidential leadership, with C Span having ten.

But Nichols says the rating score of Presidents is ultimately raised if the following six factors are considered:

Number of years served
Wartime leadership
If transformation of political landscape occurs in their term
If they are part of the Founding Fathers group
If they are considered “progressive” and pursue “equal justice for all”
If they are assassinated progressives

At the same time, two factors will decrease the rating scores of Presidents:

If the President is impeached, resigns, or has major political scandals during his administration
If they push the nation into political crisis or are unable to lift the country out of a political crisis

Going by this discussion, Nichols believes that IF Barack Obama is defeated for re-election, he will rank only as “average”, as number 22, between William McKinley and George H. W. Bush.

But Nichols also believes that If Barack Obama is re-elected to the Presidency, he could end up as high as number FOUR, behind Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington, and ahead of Thomas Jefferson!

There is lots of room for debate on the Nichols viewpoint, but it certainly will cause much more discussion and analysis of the men who have been President of the United States.

A few observations here:

If wartime Presidents have an edge, then why is James Madison, William McKinley, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush rated quite low on the rankings list generally accepted?

One term Presidencies that stick out as better include James K. Polk and John F. Kennedy.

Two term Presidencies that are seen negatively include James Madison, Ulysses Grant, Grover Cleveland, and George W. Bush.

So whether having a second term really helps raise the stature of a President is still very debatable.

And whether Barack Obama could end up ranked ahead of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton is something that will be hotly debated into the long term future.

Rick Santorum Declares War On Two Democratic Presidents: John F. Kennedy And Barack Obama!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum continues to rampage in his “cultural war” against liberals, progressives, and the Democratic Party.

He seems not to understand that what he is doing is political suicide, and if he is selected as the Republican nominee for President, a disaster awaits the party.

Establishment Republicans realize this, and can only hope that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, can stop Santorum’s ascent in the 14 primaries coming up in the next eight days.

Santorum is stopping at nothing, not only attacking President Barack Obama, but also President John F. Kennedy.

Santorum continued his attack this past weekend on Barack Obama as an elitist, and a snob, for promoting higher education for all young people, continuing to assert that Obama is trying to poison the minds of young people, making them liberal and hating religion, and promoting indoctrination.

And he has attacked Kennedy’s declaration of the absolute separation of church and state that Kennedy uttered during the Presidential campaign of 1960, stating that religion should be part of government as the Founding Fathers intended, except for the fact that they were very clear in agreeing with Kennedy’s statement that religion and politics should not mix.

Santorum seems to be totally out of control, and one can wonder whether he has ever been able to accept those who disagree with him, as he still does not have even one US Senator and only three House members from Pennsylvania willing to endorse him.

The theocracy he is promoting will not be accepted by the American people, and hopefully, Republican primary voters will realize the dangers he presents and repudiate him finally, and send him back to Pennsylvania, where he should be, helping his poor wife and older children take care of his very sick three year old daughter, instead of pontificating on what he calls the “truth”, which is totally false!

The “family values” candidate needs to focus on his own family, and stop pursuing his ego that he is qualified and acceptable to be the President of the United States, which he most certainly is not. There is no way that he could ever unite the American people in any fashion!

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Characterization Of The Republican Presidential Field: Priceless!

Ronald 3 Comments

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, was on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS today, and was asked, as part of the interview, his feelings about the final four contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination.

His response, in one paragraph, was absolutely priceless, the best characterization yet heard about them.

Rick Santorum—sounds like a medieval Savonarola, referring to medieval Catholic monk Girolamo Savonarola, who lived in Florence, Italy, and condemned what he considered immoral art, promoted book burning, and attacked the Catholic Church leadership and the Pope for being corrupt and immoral. For a while, he ran a personal theocracy in Florence, but was then excommunicated, tortured and executed by order of Church authorities.

Mitt Romney—spends his time explaining why some of his wealth is in the Cayman Islands, rather than in American banks.

Ron Paul—wants to take America back to the 1780s and the Founding Fathers.

Newt Gingrich—using his credentials as a repudiated Speaker of the House (by his own party) to claim he should be President.

Brzezinski said all four are embarrassing as candidates for the Presidency, and progressives will certainly agree with this assessment!

Rick Santorum: 2012 Most Important Election Since 1860? He May Have It Right!

Ronald 1 Comment

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator, and leading Mitt Romney in the Michigan polls, is becoming the center of more attention, having to defend Foster Friess, his “sugar daddy”, who is keeping Santorum going financially. Foster Friess made fun of women and contraception, suggesting that years ago, before birth control pills, women would put aspirin between their knees to prevent pregnancy! What an amazing statement, and all Santorum can do is say he is not responsible for what his financial and other supporters say! If he was to take responsibility, he might lose his financial support, so of course, no principles, Rick, except your own aggrandizement!

But now, Santorum today has gone further, to state that the 2012 election is the most important since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, 152 years ago!

What an interesting comparison! It is VERY CLEAR that he is appealing to white blue collar workers, north and south, craftily reminding them that before 1860, without saying it, that we did not have to worry about civil rights, human rights, such as the reality that African Americans were mostly in slavery, women had no rights, immigrants were being victimized by the American (Know Nothings) party, that government was small and based on states rights, that labor had no rights, that we exploited natural resources without regard for the environment, etc. In other words, the “good old days”, before that “dastardly” Republican named Abraham Lincoln had to “ruin” everything, and then other Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush, and others in Congress, and of course northern Democrats and Democratic Presidents had the nerve to “change” things away from what they were in 1860.

Of course, the kind of people Santorum is appealing to, in most cases, have no knowledge of what he is talking about, except in small snippets. But Santorum has a veiled message, and is promoting a “culture” war, of them against us!

This “culture war”, trying to take away separation of church and state that our Founding Fathers gave us; promotion of constant war overseas; and advocating the advancement of corporate America against the very blue collar whites that he claims to represent, IS the new “war”, just as important as the Civil War, as it is indeed the NEW “Civil War” for the future of American freedom and opportunity!

Rick Santorum, Religion And The French Revolution: Reckless Fanaticism!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is acting irresponsibly when he compares Barack Obama and his stand on contraception and other women’s services being provided by religiously based hospitals and universities to their workers, many of whom are not of that religious group, as an attack on religion.

Claiming that Obama is warring on religion, which is totally preposterous, instead what Rick Santorum offers is promotion of theocracy, by his failure to accept what another fellow Catholic, President John F. Kennedy, advocated–separation of church and state.

When Santorum is calling what Obama is doing the first stage toward the French Revolution, emphasizing the secularism and attack on organized Christianity (Catholicism) in that famous decade of the 1790s, he is being reckless and also inaccurate historically about one of the key events of modern times, an event which moved Europe toward the goals of freedom and the basic rights of man.

Anyone who wishes to be honest about history knows that NO Christian group, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, or others came about with any less violence and persecution against non believers, than the terrible bloodshed of the French Revolution. The level of violence of the French Revolution was horrific, but no less in the entire history of Christianity. And no one can say that any traditional Christian group has ever promoted democracy and the rights of man, when instead they have promoted obedience and lack of tolerance toward non believers throughout their history. Instead, all of the groups have endorsed, at one point or another, racism, anti semitism, denial of women’s rights, and the endorsement of slaughtering native Americans to conquer the North American continent, as well as South America.

This does not mean that there have not been outspoken religious people who have fought to bring open mindedness and tolerance to their faith, but they have fought this fight with great stress, and much discrimination visited upon them, and often been expelled for their challenges to the religious establishment.

We do not want a religious fanatic in the White House; instead we want a person who, like John F. Kennedy, did not promote his faith, and believed in total religious tolerance. Rick Santorum is such a fanatic, and is dangerous in that he would promote government endorsement of religion, which is NOT its role in our history, and not promoted by the Founding Fathers.

Despite vicious attacks by critics, many of whom claim to be “good Christians”, Barack Obama and his vision of Social Justice is the only kind of Christianity, or really any religious group, that makes any sense for a society in which there is too much worship of the almighty dollar, and not enough for human beings of all backgrounds who are being left in the dust as the nation moves inexorably toward a stratified society that bodes ill for the future stability of America!

One Term Presidencies: Seven Significant Leaders Not Appreciated

Ronald Leave a comment

Tomorrow marks one year to the inauguration of the next President of the United States, and the question arises whether Barack Obama will become another one term President.

Historically, those who have been one term Presidents and lost re-election have tended to go down in history as “losers”, “failures”, and as “insignificant” in American history.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Consider the following cases:

John Adams–one of the most significant Founding Fathers in the Revolution and Federalist Eras, but defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the first political party struggle.

John Quincy Adams–brilliant in diplomacy before his Presidency as one of our greatest Secretaries of State, and exceptional as a Congressman for nearly 18 years after his Presidency, fighting against the evil of slavery, but losing to Andrew Jackson.

William Howard Taft–much underrated President who also served later as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but losing to Woodrow Wilson, and even ending up behind his promoter, Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on a third party line, the Progressive Party, the greatest third party performance in American history.

Herbert Hoover–acknowledged as great humanitarian as aide to Woodrow Wilson during World War I, and as Secretary of Commerce under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, but paralyzed by the Great Depression and slow to react to the massive crisis it presented.

Jimmy Carter–Despite major accomplishments in office, particularly in foreign policy, lost reelection to Ronald Reagan because of the Iranian hostage crisis, but pursued commitment to fighting disease and promoted diplomacy and free elections after his Presidency, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

George H. W. Bush–very talented as Ambassador to China, United Nations Ambassador, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency before his Presidency, but despite his victory in the Gulf War, he was defeated due to the economic recession and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, and lost to Bill Clinton.

Another one term President who chose NOT to run for re-election, of course, had a very successful term of office. James K. Polk gained the Oregon Treaty with Great Britain, giving America the Pacific Northwest states, and waged war with Mexico, gaining California and the Southwest states. Worn out by his labors, he chose not to run, and died 103 days after retirement, the shortest retirement period of any President in American history.

So the whole concept that one term Presidents do not matter is shown to be totally incorrect.