Joseph McCarthy was right after all

Joseph McCarthy

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator who stormed into office during the 1946 mid-term elections which saw the republican party take over Congress for the first time since 1930.

He would become famous in 1950 for claiming that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ Communist sympathizers in the FDR and Truman White House. Considering that liberals had control of much of the country, and the minds of millions of Americans, he was laughed at and scorned to an early death.

The media still talks about McCarthy in a negative way, even though he has essentially been vindicated. Unfortunately, he would not be vindicated for another 41 years, or until the Soviet Union fell.  Once this happened, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinova Accords.

In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Venona Files.

The Venona Files showed (proved) that not only was McCarthy right about there being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there was over 300 spies.

Still, you don't hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. You will never learn this in the liberal public school systems. You will never learn about this by the liberal media. For this reason, many people still view McCarthy as a bad man who falsely accused people of being Communists. When, in truth, the evidence, if we so choose to check it out, shows that McCarthy was right.

In effect, we should consider McCarthy a hero rather than a villain. He would go on to serve as a Senator until 1957, until he died an untimely death. Some say he was ridiculed so much that he was driven to alcoholism, and died of hepatitis.

J. Edgar Hoover and James Comey: Too Much Power by FBI Directors?

J. Edgar Hoover

Michael Goodwin, New York Post Columnist, just made an interesting claim on the Fox News show "America's Newsroom," to Shannon Bream. He said that no president will ever fire an FBI director for fear of what he might reveal about the president. 

He said that FDR and Truman both complained about J. Edgar Hoover. President Truman went as far to accuse him of treason, but never fired him. This is because, said Goodwin, the FBI director has at his disposal access to all the dirt on the President. So, as long as he keeps his job, nothing will be revealed. 

J. Edgar Hoover was the first director of the FBI. He was the 6th director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, and stayed on to head the FBI when it was formed by the Herbert Hoover administration at the beginning of the Cold War. Truman wanted it to be responsible for  foreign and domestic spying, just like the Russian KGB. 

He remained director until he died at the age of 77 in 1972 

James Comey

After he died, evidence started to come out that he abused his power to influence political figures. It was also determined that he had amassed large political files on political figures, including FDR and Truman. So this gave him lots of power over both FDR and Truman. It would explain why he was never fired, despite claims that sitting presidents did not like him. 

Even President Nixon said he never fired him due to fears that he would use information against him. J. Edgar Hoover historian Kenneth Ackerman denied these claims, but there seems to be enough evidence to support them. 

Goodwin said that James Comey is the most powerful FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover. Evidence of this was when Comey came out and bravely said, "You are stuck with me for another six years."  In a way, one might think he is being very brave, daring Trump to fire him. But, according to Goodwin, it's because Comey has access to leaks and intelligence information about Trump.

Chances are he had similar evidence against Obama and Hillary. In fact, the way he handled the Hillary Clinton email scandal may be evidence of the power he has. He came out with damning evidence showing that Hillary was guilty, but failed to charge her of anything. Then he came out again after wikileaks revealed John Podesta's emails, and then decided once again not to charge her.  He may have just been doing this to show how powerful he was, and to show Hillary and Trump that he cannot be messed with.

That would explain why Obama never fired him.

Interesting. Not surprising, though. 

Grover Cleveland could have done what FDR did..

Grover Cleveland had to deal with a depression throughout his second term in office. As a classical liberal president he signed a repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which many suspected was the cause of the depression, but this did not cause the depression to end.

The unemployment rate was over 2 million, and there was a lot of pressure on Cleveland to take governmental action to turn the economy around and to help all those who were suffering as a result of the depression.

Yet Cleveland believed it was not the role of government to help the unemployed, that this was the job of businessmen. In other words, while he could have signed laws that violated the constitution yet would have benefited his political career, he chose to veto bills based on principle and principle alone.

In this way, Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal president; he was the last president who did not use executive powers for political gains. Ninety years later, also facing a depression that lingered through his term, Franklin Deleno Roosevelt did the opposite, signing bills that created programs and that also benefited his political career.

And trust me, many of the same programs that FDR signed into law (or tried to sign into law) were thought of during Cleveland's depression. In 1894, Jacob Coxey, a businessman who had been forced to lay off his workers, proposed many programs that would have benefited the underemployed, even going as far to propose a program for creating government jobs for the unemployed.

President Cleveland would have nothing to do with these programs, claiming they were unconstitutional, and they probably were. It would be another 90 years before a president (his name was Franklin Deleno Roosevelt) would have the nerve to step over constitutional bounds to sign programs, many similar to what coxey proposed, into law.

There was a lot of pressure on Cleveland to create programs to help the unemployed, and signing such bills might even have improved Clevelands popularity, and probably would have made him the democratic nominee in 1896 instead of William Jennings Bryan. Chances are he would have gone on to win re-election as FDR did 90 years later.

The truth was that the nation would have benefited from some regulation and monitoring of the economy, and such programs would also have benefited Herbert Hoover as he faced yet another economic down turn three decades later. Such programs might even have prolonged the Roaring 20s, thus preventing an aggressive progressive such as FDR from ever being elected.

But Cleveland was not interested in what might transpire in the future. He was not interested in furthering his political career if it meant violating the Constitution that he respected. He therefore would have no part in any law that violated it, and so he continued making use of his veto pen to veto bill after bill.

Almost every other president after Cleveland, including Bill Clinton, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush signed laws that might infringe on the Constitution simply for the purpose of political gain. Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal, and the last president to vetoe bills based on principle as opposed to signing them based on emotion.

Because of the ongoing depression, Grover Cleveland is often cited as an insignificant president. Yet because of his outright respect for the Constitution even though doing the opposite might have benefited his legacy, he ought to be regarded as one of the great presidents.

FDR created the modern economy

While it is probably true that FDR's policies (referred to as the New Deal) prolonged the Great Depression, many of the programs he created benefited future economies.  In fact, one might argue that some of the programs created by him prevented any future Great Depressions.

The best part about the New Deal, however, was that it dealt with the two main problems that plagued Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and that was lack of regulations to deal with greedy cooks, and insurance programs to insure invested money.*

There were laws that existed prior to FDR, yet most of his predecessors believed it was not the role of government to enforce them.  FDR changed this by creating organizations to act as monitors to assure regulations were being enforced.

For instance, the New Deal created the:

• Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC) which insured money invested in banks up to $100,000.  
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to regulate the stock market
• Social Security Board (SSB) was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 was responsible for monitoring insurance to the elderly, unemployment compensation, and  public assistance. The agency is now called the Social Security Administration (SSA).
• Federal Communication Commission to monitor radio and television
• Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created as part of the Federal Housing Act of 1934 to set standards for construction of homes and to ensure loans made by banks and other lenders for the purpose of building homes.  It is now called Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This assured that even the poorest people could afford a mortgage on a house. 
• Codes for fair competition were created as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933
  including production restrictions, minimum wages, and working conditions in order to limit competition and foster a spirit of teamwork among industry rivals.

While these programs were inherently beneficial to the nation, in order to pay for them he had to push tax hikes through Congress, which ultimately tripled the tax rate during FDRs terms in office, raising the top income tax rate to 90 percent.

*By saying greedy crooks, I am not referring to people who are rich, as liberals do.  I'm referring to people who actually violate the law for their own personal gain.

FDR's policies prolong the great depression

FDR was Time man of the year in 1933

In 1932 Franklin Deleno Roosevelt was elected in a Landslide. While he was never able to end the Great Depression, he, via his great speaking ability, managed to restore confidence in the American people.

A theory by a great economist and thinker by the name of Maynard Keynes was growing in popularity at this time, and it was termed Keynesian Economics. He believed an economy becomes depressed because people stop spending money. Thus, there is no demand for the goods and services.

Since people stop spending, businesses and industries don’t make a profit. Many of them will lay off workers, many others will close their doors altogether.

To solve this problem, Keynes proposed that it was the role of government to increase demand for these goods and services. It was in this spirit that he believed it was acceptable to return to pre-Roaring 20s tax and spend policies (he created many government programs, and raised the top marginal tax rate back up to 90 percent during his term in office).

FDR, desperate to end the Great Depression, adapted Keynes economic policy. Thus, with the New Deal, he proposed several government programs that would increase government spending. In essence, FDR created Big Government. (He did not, however, intend on it becoming the beast it is today.)

The Great Depression dragged on for years until it ran out its course by the end of WWII. Some experts say it was FDRs policies, coupled with increased spending during WWII, that caused it to come to an end.  But others argue with this theory, noting that, had WWII ended it, then why did the government resort to rations and forcing people to sell their gold to the government.

A better argument is that the depression continued through WWII, only to come to an end as later presidents reduced taxes to encourage savings and investment.  Those who support this argument believe that Roosevelt's tax and spend policies are what turned a regular depression into the Great Depression.

Consider, for a moment, that there were many recessions and depressions prior to the one FDR inherited, and all of those lasted only a few years.  The reason they were short lived was because presidents prior to FDR believed it was the role of government to make minor tweaks to create a stable economic environment, but it was the role of individual businesses to fix the unemployment rate.

Two examples here are Grover Cleveland and the depression of 1893-95, and Warren G. Harding and the depression of 1920-21.  Grover Cleveland believed his role was to stay out of the way, and Warren G. Harding cut spending and taxes to get government out of the way.  In both these instances the depressions were short lived.

Despite this evidence, FDR (along with Herbert Hoover) chose to do the opposite.  He increased the scope and size of government, and to pay for these programs he raised tripled taxes.  While his programs may have helped the poor, they did little to spur economic growth.  By doing so, the argument is that FDR did nothing to end the depression, instead he prolonged it.

So, while Herbert Hoover's policies may have caused the Great Depression, FDR's policies prolonged it.  Yet considering the people were so desperate, and believed (or felt) that doing something (even something stupid) was better than doing nothing, FDR as a hero, and Time Magazine even named him Man of the Year in 1933.

Hoover leads decline of economy

There are many people who continue to blame the stock market crash of 1929, and the Great Depression that followed, on the economic policies set forth by Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge (supply-side economics). Yet a better place to find blame would be in the economic policies of Herbert Hoover. 

It is true that the economic miracle that took place during the 1920s was a direct result of Warren G. Harding cutting federal spending by 40 percent, and the tax cuts of both Harding and Calvin Coolidge. 

These events in and of  themselves resulted in good economic times, and when similar events have occurred in later years -- John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush all cut taxes, although never reined in spending -- similar results were observed, where federal revenue increased and the economy grew. It is quite clear that federal spending and taxes must be kept below a certain level for optimal economic prosperity, as the Laffer Curve suggests.

So, then, what caused the events leading up to the Great Depression?

One theory is that Americans were so indulged in their own happiness during the 1920s that they failed to notice inflation and unemployment were increasing.  There were also not enough regulations in place to monitor business activity, meaning that no one was monitoring to assure workers were getting fair pay and treatment.  There was also little insurance on invested monies to assure it would not become lost in the case of an economic collapse.

To go along with this, you also have to consider beliefs that were prevalent at this time.  During WWI Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that it was the war to end all wars. So there weren't supposed to be any more wars, meaning the world was in a state of world peace.

It was also believed that alcohol was the cause of all crime, so when prohibition was passed there was supposed to be no more crime.  Since there was no crime and no more wars, that meant no more bad people, and therefore there was no pressing need for rules and regulations.  So this also could explain the self absorption without monitors. 

In other words, with the Roaring 20s in full bloom, people believed they had created a euphoric nation, and they figured it would last forever. Evidently they were wrong, but this is what they believed.  So to blame the collapse of the economy solely on the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge is poppycock. 

But something did go wrong, obviously.  Only seven months into his term of Herbert Hoover as president the stock market crashed on Thursday, October 24, 1929.  This resulted in an immediate economic downturn, or recession. Despite what some claim, the economy did not immediately fall into a depression.  Yet poor decisions that followed the crash would lead it into one.

Before the recession people readily invested their money in banks and the stock market, both for safe keeping and to make more money off interest and capital gains.  This system had worked so well during the 1920s that people had no reason to suspect it would ever end.  

Due to the euphoric state of the nation prior to the collapse, Americans were completely caught off guard. Their utter despair at what happened caused them to lose all confidence in the American economic system, particularly the stock market and banking system.  The general consensus now was that these were no places to put your hard earned dollars.  

Now, in lieu of taking risks and investing, people starting tucking their hard earned dollars under their beds, or inside their pillow cases.  The last thing they wanted to do was put it in banks that were not insured, or businesses that were not regulated.  Such lack of trust, and lack of confidence, is what lead to the recession.

What transpired next would have an immediate impact on whether the economy would turn around, whether it would remain in a recession, or whether it would turn into a depression. Since so many people blamed tax and spending cuts on the recession, it only made senses (or so it was suspected) that exactly the opposite was necessary to pull the country out of recession.  

So Hoover did have an opportunity to pull the country out of this downward economic spiral, he just didn't know that all he had to do was create insurance programs to protect invested money, and regulations to assure that people did not cheat, in order to regain the trust of the people. 

Either Hoover was unaware of this, or he simply refused to heed the advice of economic experts who advised such.  However, in Hoover's defense, this was, after all, the first recession of a new kind of economy  -- post 16th amendment, and in a modern, global world.  

Hoover sided with the experts who championed for tax increases, and so instead of cutting taxes, he raised the top marginal income tax from 24 percent to 63 percent by signing the Revenue Act of 1932. 

This was coupled with a rise in tariffs that resulted when Hoover agreed to sign into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930.  This "throttled trade."

The combination of these two, the rise in tariffs and tax hikes, meant that he was, in effect, taking more money out of the pockets of people and corporations that were already hurting for money. Employers had less money for hiring, and consumers had less money for spending.  It was this, more so than anything, that caused the economy to spiral into the Great Recession.

So the closest our nation ever came to complete euphoria came during the Roaring 20s, and it was all thanks to Harding and Coolidge.  Yet, perhaps due to lack of experience, neither Harding nor Coolidge had the foresight to create minimal regulations for guiding the economy, and insurance programs for protecting against loss of personal investments. 

Yet Hoover had the opportunity, if not prior to the crash, after it, to return the economy to prosperity. 

But he chose to cave in to the raise taxes and increase spending crowd.  He chose big government solutions as opposed to free market solutions.  And for that reason, he, perhaps justly so, is often blamed for turning the recession into what would become known as the Great Depression. 

Is it time for black Americans to vote republican?

Here's something I would like to see some serious debates on: is it time for African Americans to start voting for republicans?

After the Civil War, after blacks were given the right to vote, nearly 90 percent of them voted for republicans.  In fact, by 1912, republicans were still receiving 93 percent of the black vote.  Then, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, blacks started to vote with increasing frequency for democrats, and now about 90 percent of blacks vote democrat.

During the Great Depression blacks suffered hard, and it was at this time that they started to vote for democrats.  They were told by the Roosevelt administration that they would be better served by progressive handouts than the capitalistic programs doled out by republican.  Considering most blacks needed assistance at the time, they started voting for democrats in huge numbers.

In 1936, only 25 percent of blacks voted for FDR.  However, by 1936, 75 percent of blacks voted for democrats for the first time in history.  Since then democrats have voted for democrats and their progressive agenda ever since.  So, the question of the day is, how has that fared for the black community?

Recently, Stephen A. Smith, a black commentator for ESPN said the following:

I have often said that from a political perspective what I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote republican.  Do you know that since 1964, black America hasn't given the republican party more than 15 percent of its vote?  Here's what that means.  What that means is that one party... the black folks in America are telling one party, 'We don't give a damn about you!'  They're telling the other party 'You've got our vote!'  Therefore, you have labeled yourself disenfranchised because one party knows they've got you under their thumb.  The other party knows they'll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.

This has spawned an interesting debate.  Here are some more statistics to add into the discussion.

1.  A majority of blacks want school choice, and democrats oppose this while republicans support
2.  We have 50 million Americans on food stamps
3.  We have 92 million Americans not working
4.  We have 45.3 million Americans in poverty
5.  The Obama Administration has accumulated more debt that every other president combined
6.  50 percent of black teenagers can't get a summer job
7.  There are 20 million more Americans on food stamps and in poverty after 7 years of Obama
8.  We have the lowest labor participation since 1978
9.  Median income is down $4,000 under Obama
10.  In 2008 there were 7.5 million black on food stamps, now the number is 12 million
11.  Black teenage unemployment has gone up
12.  Labor force participation has gone down
12.  Black home ownership has dropped
12.  Black unemployment rate hovers around 12 percent in America
13.  The voting rights act of 1965 passed because of efforts by republicans (was not on LBJs agenda)
14.  The civil rights act of 1964 passed because of efforts by republicans (was not on LBJs agenda)
15.  Reagan signed a 25 year extension of the voting rights act
16.  GWB signed a 25 year extension of the voting rights act
17.  Obama's policies have failed all Americans, and especially hit hard are black Americans
18.  The poverty rate in 2014 was about 14 percent, and this was basically the same as it was in 1967 when LBJ started his war on poverty.
19.  Since black teenagers can't get a job, that means they are hanging around with their friends, and this is how they get into trouble.

So, the question to ask is: how are black Americans better off under democratic leadership?  The overall consensus of voters was that having a black president would make things better for blacks, and the evidence suggests that this has happened?  

It's better for blacks to be working and have opportunities, and this, I think, has not happened under democratic leadership.  Or has it? If there are statistics that show blacks are better off under democratic leadership, I haven't seen them.  Have you? If so, please post in the comments below.

Further reading:

1. Why African Americans Should Vote Republican
2. The War on Poverty After 50 years
3. Why did black voters free the republican party

FDRs Second Bill of Rights

FDR was irritated with the Supreme Court for finding some of his programs unconstitutional, so he threatened to stack the Supreme court with liberal judges and he threatened a 2nd Bill of rights. He hated the separation of powers. He wanted to be a totolitarian dictator and force socialism on the nation in the name of social justice.

He did not like the Supreme Court overruling ideas and programs he decided should be enacted for our own good. And therefore he opted to change the Constitution itself.

Thankfully he failed at both efforts. If he would have succeeded, he would have had king-like powers, and he would have made the U.S. a socialistic nation.

Here is FDRs 2nd Bill of Rights:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
4. The right of every business man large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad
5. The right of every family to a decent home
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
7. The right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployemnt
8. The right to a good education

None of these are inalienable rights.  These are not rights. These are attempts to create socialism. These are attempts to create the progressive ideal world, the same ideal world Stalin, Mussoline and Hitler tried to create and failed.

FDRs Second Bill of Rights was socialism in disguise.