JFK: ‘Well, That’s a Tough Day’

Andy Soltis, New York Post, January 25, 2012

Newly released White House tapes reveal one particularly eerie conversation between President John F. Kennedy and an aide just three days before his death.

Kennedy, in the tape dated Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1963, is heard casually talking about his upcoming trip to Dallas that Friday, his weekend plans in Cape Cod, and how hard it was trying to schedule things for the next week.

“Monday? Well, that’s a tough day,” he said.

“It’s a hell of a day, Mr. President,” the aide agreed.

Kennedy was assassinated that Friday and buried Monday.

The exchange was among the final 45 hours of tapes released by The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

The tapes, secretly recorded with Kennedy’s knowledge and made during what would be the final months of his life, also show the president candidly analyzing his chances for re-election in 1964 with top political advisers.

{snip}

That tape, dated 10 days before his death, shows Kennedy admitting that 1964 would be a tough race and that he had to find a way to convince voters to back him.

{snip}

Kennedy also acknowledged that his civil-rights record could turn off an average voter.

“We’re the ones shoving the Negroes down his throat,” he said of the average voter.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Wow it is so refreshing to hear a mainstream politician say something like that.

    I have to wonder if people like Romney, Gingrich, etc. actually believe this diversity bull they’re shoving down our throats.

     

    • HeathStephens

      Of course they dont.  But they have to tow the PC line in order to get where they ultimately want to be; the white house.  No sane, sober person could possibly believe all of this diversity stuff that’s spouted daily.

    • Anonymous

      JFK may have been describing what average Americans saw him as doing, rather than what he envisioned himself as doing.

      • Anonymous

        Look, I was 11 at the time JFK was shot.  My family had visited the White House in 1961.  I made a scrap book from the headlines when he was assassinated.  I have read a lot of books on him.  I was a close friend to one of his cousins, a man much older than me who dead for ten years now.  But I think you are trying to defend JFK because he was Irish.  If you want to get anywhere in this race realist world full of people with their own biases, you must try to be more objective, ready to hear the things that might shatter your starry views.

  • Anonymous

    In 1964 Lyndon Johnson won 61.1 percent of the vote, and the Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964 
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1964
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1964 
     
    In retrospect, the Democrat Party would have benefited from a closer election. In 1964 the Democrats had mandates to preserve the basic reforms of the New Deal, and to avoid war with the Soviet Union. Because of his landslide Lyndon Johnson over played his mandates with the War on Poverty, and the civil rights legislation. 
     
    After 1964 the Democrat Party went out on a limb to help the blacks. Blacks cut off the limb with five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency. The result has been a country dominated by the Republican Party. 

  • Anonymous

    In 1964 Lyndon Johnson won 61.1 percent of the vote, and the Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964 
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1964
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1964 
     
    In retrospect, the Democrat Party would have benefited from a closer election. In 1964 the Democrats had mandates to preserve the basic reforms of the New Deal, and to avoid war with the Soviet Union. Because of his landslide Lyndon Johnson over played his mandates with the War on Poverty, and the civil rights legislation. 
     
    After 1964 the Democrat Party went out on a limb to help the blacks. Blacks cut off the limb with five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency. The result has been a country dominated by the Republican Party. 

  • retrorespect

    “We’re the ones shoving the Negroes down his throat,” Kennedy said of the average voter.

    Indeed. Assuming he had not been assassinated and ended up signing the Civil Rights act into law the following year, the Democrats would not have gotten such a landslide victory against Goldwater that November.  Many people voted the way they did because they were still in shock about his assasination and were not in the mood to change presidents in such a short period yet again.  The Left certainly wouldn’t have felt as empowered as it did to push its over-reaching civil rights agenda in the following years had the 1964 election been closer. I still doubt that Goldwater would have won had he faced Kennedy instead of  Johnson, but the liberal excesses of the 60s which we are still paying for today (literally and figuratively)  may not have been so drastic.  Then again, both of his brothers turned out to be nothing short of radical in their approach to race issues for the remainder of their lives.  Both toured South Africa (RFK in the mid 60s, Teddy in the mid 80s) lambasting its policiy of apartheid,  both tricked the public into supporting the Immigration Act of 65, among many other things.  So JFKs instincts about race may have turned out to be  just as extreme as his siblings had he lived. Then again if Nixon had won instead of Kennedy in 1960, who knows how the decade would have turned out; especially when it came to the epochal matter of civil rights.  who knows…

  • “We’re the ones shoving the Negroes down his throat,” he said of the average voter.

    Problem is, Kennedy didn’t have the political skill to get those civil rights bills passed.  It would take him getting assassinated and the ascension of a master politician in the person of Lyndon Johnson to make that happen.

    Engelman:  Goldwater said it best himself in his own autobio.  The reason he lost 1964 so badly was because his victory would have meant the third different President in a 15-month time span, and Americans don’t change Presidents that quickly if they’re given the choice, and also that election day in 1964 wasn’t even a whole year after the assassination.  He also fully realized that “white racists” were latching on to his libertarian-based opposition to civil rights acts.  He defended himself by noting that he voted for the weaker civil rights bills in the 1950s, and that his family’s Phoenix department store was the first major employer in the Valley to hire blacks, though since the Valley didn’t have many blacks, that wasn’t quite the same as if it were a department store in Alabama.

    Retrorespect:  Nixon was more receptive to the civil rights agenda than Kennedy in the very late 1950s and through 1960.

    • Anonymous

      One thing you’re forgetting is that Goldwater advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam – or any frontier where “the communism threat might become aggressive.”  I can remember tv ads where the motto of his campaign, “In your heart, you know he’s right,” countered with “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”  That election was more about how far we were prepared to go – nuclear, or not, in our political wars, and in the Cold War.

    • Anonymous

      “We’re the ones shoving the Negroes down his throat,” he said of the average voter.”

      It turned out to be down “her” throat, didn’t it?

    • Anonymous

      In 1964 public opinion surveys indicated that over 75 percent of the American people trusted the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. The consensus was that the federal government under the leadership of the Democratic Party had ended the Great Depression, won the Second World War, and was managing an economy in which nearly everyone got pay raises every year that beat inflation.
       
      Barry Goldwater ran against that consensus. 
       
      A number of factors reduced that consensus including evidence that social reform and social welfare spending cannot solve social problems that are caused by personal inadequacies (many of which are genetic).
       
      By 1980 25 percent of the American people trusted the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. 
       
      http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/section-1-trust-in-government-1958-2010/
       
      Those different percentages are the reasons Barry Goldwater was not elected president, and why Ronald Reagan was elected. 

      • Marcy Fleming

        Well, the consensus was wrong, the domestic New Deal was a total failure, see The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn, New Deal Or Raw Deal ? by Burton Folsom, Jr.,
        The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes and FDR’s Folly by Jim Powell.
        FDR brought about US intervention in the war, see Pearl Harbor by George Morgenstern and Back Door To War by Charles Callan Tansill, precisely because the Depression was still around as big as life.
        During the war the government expanded at 100 times the rate of the New Deal in controls, regulations, regimentation, censorship and Federal control of big industry. It was only the pent up demand after the war and its horrible rationing
        and the ending of controls that started the real end of the depression and the first boom in the civilian economy. The voters repudiated FDR and Truman in the 1946 elections bigtime. Engleman, stop spreading theis NY Times Lib Left Establishment nonsense as history. The last poll before JFK was killed showed him a virtual dead heat with Goldwater, 52-48.
        The economy prospered to the extent that it was UNmanaged, it was precisely the Great Society increased management that brought about public distrust of
        government, which is a per se great thing.

        • Marcy Fleming

          One major point that I forgot to mention in my refutation of Engleman is that no President, Administration or Government ever creates any private sector jobs, the most they can do is not make their creation impossible as they frequently do. Neither Clinton or Reagan or the Bushes or Obama ever created a single job unless it was for their cronies at the taxpayers’ expense.

          • Anonymous

            From the administrations of Lyndon Johnson to that of George W. Bush there was more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There was also more job creation per year under Harry Truman than Dwight Eisenhower.
             
            http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
             
            This is too much of a pattern to be a coincidence. Republican politicians like a fairly high degree of unemployment because it relieves employers of the need to compete for employees. Consequently, economic growth goes to profits, rather than pay checks. This is what has happened during the twenty-first century.
             
            ———–
             
            Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1]  The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record
            http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634 
             
            American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter[of 2010], according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure
            recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

          • Anonymous

            During a period of high unemployment, when the government hires the unemployed, it turns them into consumers. When they buy more, they encourage employers to hire more to produce more. 
             
            One of the many popular government spending programs of the New Deal was the Civilian Conservation Corps. 
             
            ———
             
            The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a public work relief program that operated from 1933 to 1942 in the United States for unemployed, unmarried men from relief families, ages 18–25. A part of the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it provided unskilled manual labor jobs related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments…
             
             A Gallup poll of 18 April 1936, asked “Are you in favor of the CCC camps?”; 82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.[30]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

          • Marcy Fleming

            Your lying stats on Demo Presidents don’t cut it. Johnson inherited the Kennedy Boom solely due to JFK’s massive tax cuts.
            No Democrat has ever created any jobs nor has any Republican in FedGov, all they can do at best is stay out of the way of businesss which solely creates jobs.
            Johnson left massive inflation and deficits to Nixon and Nixon continued the same failed Keynesian policies as his 1971 ‘We are all Keynesians now’ remark proved. His price and wage controls were utter failures and were mainly supported by Democrats.
            There was far more job creation under Reagan than Carter and Clinton’s alleged boom crashed with NASDAQ in March 2000.
            Bush inherited his depression and after it ended far more jobs
            were created until 2008 Fed crash than has been created under Obama.
            There was only job growth under Truman AFTER FDR’s wartime rationing and controls were lifted. By 1952 Truman’s approval ratings were below 30% due to his illegal Korean War, massive Communist infiltration into FedGov, his attempts to Sovietize the steel and coal industries and the rest of his failed statist attempts from forced integration to socialized medicine.
            After the Korean War there was tremendous job creation under the GOP until the 1958 depression.
            Your rationale of government handouts and stealing of other people’s money to create jobs is pure BS.
            Depressions are not caused by lack of purchasing power, they are caused by government manipulation of the money supply via the Fed. See America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
            There are objective market factors that determine wages, not ‘greed.’  You need to learn economics which has nothing to do with equality or social justice or other fantasies. Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises is a great place to start as is Economic Controversies by Rothbard. You need to get off your complacent LibDem butt and off the internet to read some other views than the leftist rubbish you’ve been spouting for god knows how many wasted years.
            Most businesses didn’t earn any record profits in 2008-2011 and most didn’t get trillion dollar bailouts. Most are hard put to stay alive and are not hiring much if at all.
            A Gallup Poll of 1936 means nothing as any economist will tell you that CCC, PWA, WPA made a zilch dent in the overall unemployment.
            I’m sure a poll today would show 90% belive in the Good Fairy.
            So what ? 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong and often are.

          • Marcy Fleming

            Your lying stats on Demo Presidents don’t cut it. Johnson inherited the Kennedy Boom solely due to JFK’s massive tax cuts.
            No Democrat has ever created any jobs nor has any Republican in FedGov, all they can do at best is stay out of the way of businesss which solely creates jobs.
            Johnson left massive inflation and deficits to Nixon and Nixon continued the same failed Keynesian policies as his 1971 ‘We are all Keynesians now’ remark proved. His price and wage controls were utter failures and were mainly supported by Democrats.
            There was far more job creation under Reagan than Carter and Clinton’s alleged boom crashed with NASDAQ in March 2000.
            Bush inherited his depression and after it ended far more jobs
            were created until 2008 Fed crash than has been created under Obama.
            There was only job growth under Truman AFTER FDR’s wartime rationing and controls were lifted. By 1952 Truman’s approval ratings were below 30% due to his illegal Korean War, massive Communist infiltration into FedGov, his attempts to Sovietize the steel and coal industries and the rest of his failed statist attempts from forced integration to socialized medicine.
            After the Korean War there was tremendous job creation under the GOP until the 1958 depression.
            Your rationale of government handouts and stealing of other people’s money to create jobs is pure BS.
            Depressions are not caused by lack of purchasing power, they are caused by government manipulation of the money supply via the Fed. See America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
            There are objective market factors that determine wages, not ‘greed.’  You need to learn economics which has nothing to do with equality or social justice or other fantasies. Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises is a great place to start as is Economic Controversies by Rothbard. You need to get off your complacent LibDem butt and off the internet to read some other views than the leftist rubbish you’ve been spouting for god knows how many wasted years.
            Most businesses didn’t earn any record profits in 2008-2011 and most didn’t get trillion dollar bailouts. Most are hard put to stay alive and are not hiring much if at all.
            A Gallup Poll of 1936 means nothing as any economist will tell you that CCC, PWA, WPA made a zilch dent in the overall unemployment.
            I’m sure a poll today would show 90% belive in the Good Fairy.
            So what ? 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong and often are.

    • Anonymous

      In 1964 public opinion surveys indicated that over 75 percent of the American people trusted the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. The consensus was that the federal government under the leadership of the Democratic Party had ended the Great Depression, won the Second World War, and was managing an economy in which nearly everyone got pay raises every year that beat inflation.
       
      Barry Goldwater ran against that consensus. 
       
      A number of factors reduced that consensus including evidence that social reform and social welfare spending cannot solve social problems that are caused by personal inadequacies (many of which are genetic).
       
      By 1980 25 percent of the American people trusted the government to do the right thing all or most of the time. 
       
      http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/section-1-trust-in-government-1958-2010/
       
      Those different percentages are the reasons Barry Goldwater was not elected president, and why Ronald Reagan was elected. 

  • “We’re the ones shoving the Negroes down his throat,” he said of the average voter.

    Problem is, Kennedy didn’t have the political skill to get those civil rights bills passed.  It would take him getting assassinated and the ascension of a master politician in the person of Lyndon Johnson to make that happen.

    Engelman:  Goldwater said it best himself in his own autobio.  The reason he lost 1964 so badly was because his victory would have meant the third different President in a 15-month time span, and Americans don’t change Presidents that quickly if they’re given the choice, and also that election day in 1964 wasn’t even a whole year after the assassination.  He also fully realized that “white racists” were latching on to his libertarian-based opposition to civil rights acts.  He defended himself by noting that he voted for the weaker civil rights bills in the 1950s, and that his family’s Phoenix department store was the first major employer in the Valley to hire blacks, though since the Valley didn’t have many blacks, that wasn’t quite the same as if it were a department store in Alabama.

    Retrorespect:  Nixon was more receptive to the civil rights agenda than Kennedy in the very late 1950s and through 1960.

  • Anonymous

    No one could have forseen Puff The Magic Negro in the White House.

  • We know Nixon had a very right wing heart and governed from the left.  The parts of the civil rights agenda that weren’t passed with legislation under the previous President, or the parts that the advocates would not have dared trying to implement with legislation so as not to infuriate whites, Nixon enacted with executive orders, affirmative action as an example.  But Nixon was often recorded saying n-words and j-words.

    I doubt JFK was like that personally.  But his father had reverence for GNSWP-era Germany.

    But to me, it doesn’t matter what Nixon or JFK or anyone thought, it’s what they did.  I was always taught that words are cheap and that actions have consequences.

    • Anonymous

      Yet words often are the cause of actions.

      • Yes, but when I see words saying one thing and actions accruing to the polar opposite, I disregard the words.

      • Yes, but when I see words saying one thing and actions accruing to the polar opposite, I disregard the words.

      • Yes, but when I see words saying one thing and actions accruing to the polar opposite, I disregard the words.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I don’t think that the course of events would have been much different with anyone else. Blacks would necessarily get full spectrum of civil rights & the immigration law would be altered in a not very different way. It’s not Kennedy or Johnson, but counterculture of late 1960s & early 1970s, with hippies, anti -war protests, weed, miscegenation, hedonistic & spoiled baby boomers that created the contemporary mess.

    • Anonymous

      But America was a normal country under JFK.  I think the shock and grief and confusion following his death may have helped bring all those horrible trends you mentioned about.

      • Anonymous

        The CIA, under Congressional pressure, released a slough of formerly classified records in 1976.  Many of them were concerned with the CIA program K-ULTRA, the secret tests of LSD and other substances for the purpose of attaining a truth serum.  Convinced that the Soviets were doing the same, they allowed themselves to go to excesses beyond belief.  Two authors spent 16 year going through them and editing a heavily documented account of what they were up in from 1943 (as the OSS) up through the 1960s.  The section concerning JFK is startling, to say the least, as is the rest.

        If you want to read an unbiased, objective history revealing the really horrid underbelly of what was going on in America while it seemed “normal,” and if you are not afraid of learning uncomfortable things, I recommend this book to you and anyone who wants to understand the complexities of our most pertinent historical period;  “Acid Dream” – “A Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, The Sixties, and Beyond.” – Lee & Schlain

      • Marcy Fleming

        No, it wasn’t. And the events that followed were the logical extension of statist liberalism.

    • Marcy Fleming

      No it has been going down hill since FDR and even Wilson. The 60s were just the New Deal era taken to its logical reductio ad absurdum.

      • Anonymous

        If the United States has been going “down hill” since the election of Franklin Roosevelt, why has the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grown from $4,901 in 1932 to $32,730 in 2002? 
         
        http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html 
         
        Why has every effort to repeal the basic reforms of the New Deal run into a solid wall of popular opposition? 

        • Marcy Fleming

          Your the guy that said he wasn’t sure if the US standard of living went up or down from 1848 to 1932 !
          I NEVER said there was a steady curve down all the time since 1932
          economically speaking.
          The New Deal from 1932 to 1938 failed, only after FDR started planning for war in early 1939 did the economy start up and the real pickup came after 1945 when the controls were lifted and the pentup demand of 16 years exploded.
          32K in 1932 dollars would probably be really 12K.
          The solid wall of opposition has never appeared because there has no attempt to repeal the tragedy of the New Deal and the protest would be coming from misinformed people like you in the academe, bureaucracy and media, not from most people.
          What has been going downhill since Wilson or the first Roosevelt is our basic individual liberties. That has been a constant whether in boom or the subsequent predictable bust times.

          • Anonymous

            The solid wall of opposition has never appeared because there has no attempt to repeal the tragedy of the New Deal and the protest would be coming from misinformed people like you in the academe, bureaucracy and media, not from most people.                                                                                                                                                                      
            – Marcy Fleming                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                     
            —————-                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                     
            How am I misinformed? I am responding to your derogatory statements with well documented facts that are at my fingertips.
             
            There never has been any popular demand to reduce or eliminate Social Security. There certainly is not now.                                                              
                                                                                                                                                     
            —————
             
            CNN September 29th, 2011 
             
            (CNN) – Social Security reform has taken
            center stage in the 2012 presidential debate and one in five say the system is
            unconstitutional, but a new CNN/ORC International poll shows a majority of
            Americans have good feelings about the program.
            Eight in 10 Americans think Social Security has been good for the country,
            with 70 percent of young adults agreeing and almost nine in 10 senior citizens
            saying the same.                                                                  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/cnn-poll-one-in-five-say-social-security-is-unconstitutional/      

          • Anonymous

            The solid wall of opposition has never appeared because there has no attempt to repeal the tragedy of the New Deal and the protest would be coming from misinformed people like you in the academe, bureaucracy and media, not from most people.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   – Marcy Fleming                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     
            ————–
                                                                                                                                                     
            This is what President Eisenhower had to say about the reforms of the New Deal:      
                                                                                                                                                                
            ————–                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                 
            Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid. 
            http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                               
               
                                                                                                                                                               
                          
                                                                                                                                                     

    • Marcy Fleming

      No it has been going down hill since FDR and even Wilson. The 60s were just the New Deal era taken to its logical reductio ad absurdum. What you call the spectrum of civil rights is just the ongoing violations of individual property rights including corporations which are solely composed of individuals. Your ‘inevitability’ assumptions are strictly Marxist nonsense.

      • Anonymous

        Karl Marx used different terms, but he did say that the natural tendency of capitalism was to increase the per capita gross domestic product while reducing median income adjusted for inflation. He also said that capitalism produced increasingly destructive economic downturns.
         
        One can argue whether the over all standard of living rose or fell from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. It is certainly clear that economic downturns became more destructive.
         
        The economic policies of John Maynard Keynes countered the tendencies Karl Marx wrote about and lead to broadly based economic expansion from the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt to the recession of 1974. The recession of 1974 was caused by the rise in the price of petroleum that followed the You Kipper War in 1973. Keynesianism was not designed to deal with the shortage of a basic natural resource. Nevertheless, once the United States emerged from the Great Depression, recessions were fairly mild until 1974. 
         
        Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 the economic controls put in place by Democratic administrations, and kept there by Republican administrations, have been reversed. Consequently, recessions have become more serious. Although economic growth has continued, eighty percent of the American people have not benefited.
         
        http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698

        • Marcy Fleming

          There was never any broadly based expansion under FDR until 1939 when he plotted to get us into the world war because his New Deal had failed. Readers see the Flynn, Shlaes, Powell and Folsom books I recommended above. See The Failure Of The New Economics by Henry Hazlitt, a complete debunking of Keynesian economics, see Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises for a thorough debunking of the whole interventionist schema, see Capitalism by George Reisman, Where Keynes Went Wrong:And Why World Governments Keep Creating
          Inflation, Bubbles And Busts by Hunter Lewis.
          Keynes was finally buried in 1974 when we experienced simultaneous depression and inflation, something Keynes assured us could never happen. It is precisely because of the government intervention and controls that Hoover’s New Deal prolonged what had only been a one year depression in 1920-21 to a ten year one because of his and Roosevelt’s interventionist policies. See America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
          We have had many depressions, relabeled recessions since the New Deal.
          1958-1960, 1969-1971, 1973-1975, 1979-1982, 1991-1992, 2000-2003
          just to name the ones that come immediately to mind.
          The great majority of Americans are certainly far better off than they were in 1974 or 1980. BUT they are not nearly as well off as they would be under a gold-based commodity dollar, elimination of the safety net
          and all business regulations, in short under laissez-faire capitalism.
          We need to end the Fed and the fraud of fractional reserve banking.
          On the current great depression see Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.,
          for the Fed’s easy credit policy under Greenspan and the Clinton era anti-discrimination in mortgage lending law that caused the meltdown, starting with housing.
          It’s amazing how different the world looks once you free yourself from the Liberal Establishment’s New Deal paradigm.

          • Anonymous

            There was never any broadly based expansion under FDR until 1939 when he plotted to get us into the world war because his New Deal had failed.                                                                                     
            – Marcy Fleming                                          
                                                       
            ————-                       
                                    
            Warren G. Harding was inaugurated in 1921. The per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars was $5,758. Eight Years later, when Calvin Coolidge finished his last year in office the per capita gross domestic had risen to $7,439.    
                               
            When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933 the per capta gross domestic product had declined to $4,804 in terms of 1996 dollars. Because the GOP had dominated the country during the “Roaring Twenties,” the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression cannot be blamed on the Democrats.     
                                              
            When FDR finished the last year of his first term in office the per capita gross domestic product in terms of 1996 dollars had risen to $6,423.                               
                                                               
            There was nearly as much economic growth during President Roosevelt’s first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, even when we do not include the decline under Herbert Hoover.                                         
                                                 
             From 1921 to 2000 we have had Republican president for forty years. We have had Democratic presidents for forty years. The per capita gross domestic product has grown over twice as much under Democratic presidents as Republican presidents.
                                                                   
            http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html  
                                                           
            I would like to add that if President Roosevelt had not “plotted to get us into the world war,” the Japanese would have conquered China and much else of East Asia. The Germans would have conquered Europe and killed an additional six million Jews. I am glad FDR plotted to prevent that.                                   
                                         

          • Marcy Fleming

            There would have no Jewish deaths in Europe except for the war which was started by the UK and Franco Declaration of war on Germany to protect Poland’s indefensible borders which they knew were wrong, a product of Versailles, AND they knew they couldn’t come to Poland’s rescue.
            Even Establishment Holocaust historians acknowledge that Hitler’s goal was emigration, not extermination and they claim that the so-called Holocaust only started in Summer 1942 and ended in Summer 1944. So the US entry into the world had nothing to with saving Europe’s Jews nor did the original UK-Franco Declaration which started the war.
            During the war there were nowhere near “six million” Jews in the German-controlled areas. Two million Soviet Jews were evacuated before the German attack in June 1941 and in the Soviet-controlled area of Poland the Soviets had also evacuated
            millions of Polish Jews to east of the Urals. There certainly were not ANOTHER ‘six million Jews’ around to kill.
            The word ‘holocaust’ means death in a great conflagration and this is not how the 500,000 or slightly more European Jews died during the whole war. BUT that is how millions of German and Japanese civilians DID perish.
            Read Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D and you can get it from Amazon.
            I could give a long essay here debunking the specifics of the Shoah legend, the Babi Yar hoax, the human lampshades and soap bars
            hoax, Frank’s Diary, the myth of 3,000 Einsatzgruppen killing two million Soviet Jews, the gas chambers hoax, the six million figure,
            etc., but interested parties can check out the Dalton book.
            The Japanese already conquered most of China and the result of FDR’s back door to war was Mao’s triumph a few years later and the Communist policies which 110 million people from 1949-1976.
            How could the Japanese have been worse than that ?
            Chiang’s regime from 1927-49 killed at least 10 million people, maybe more so what were we ‘saving’ the Chinese from ?

        • Marcy Fleming

          I just saw that incredibly inane comment that Engelman wasn’t sure if the living standard rose or fell from 1848 to 1932. This is a mindboggling piece of ahistorical imbecility that is over the top even for Engelman.
          See The Triumph Of American Capitalism by Louis Hacker,
          see Capitalism The Creator by Carl Snyder and for a thorough debunking of Marxism see both Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises and his subsequent
          Human Action:A Treatise On Economics.
          For further debunking of Keynesian and all collectivist doctrines see The God Of The Machine by Isabel Paterson.
          The only reason that economic turndowns became more destructive later
          in the 19th and 20th centuries was increasing government intervention.
          The banks were given license to print greenbacks from Lincoln on that were increasingly not backed by a real commodity, Gold.
          See Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, an examination of the identical Keynesian New Deals in the US, Germany and Italy from 1933-1939. All three failed and all three leaders resorted to war.

          • Anonymous

            Whenever someone gives me a reading list, I know I have won the argument. If you read those books with understanding you should be able to convey the arguments in them in your own words, substantiating your arguments with facts that you document. 
             
            During the New Deal wealth, power, and prestige shifted from the business community to the government. The heroes of the New Deal were not entrepreneurs and investors but intellectuals, civil servants, and labor leaders. 
             
            Because the Roosevelt administration raised taxes on businessmen while encouraging their employees to form and join labor unions there certainly was a market for books condemning the New Deal. That does not mean that the arguments in those books are valid. 
             
            For most Americans life began to get better almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, while Republicans have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal, and why FDR’s face is on the dimes in your purse.

          • Marcy Fleming

            During the New Deal wealth started moving from the industrialists and businessmen who created it to the parasitic intellectual class which has created all of our problems including the left sponsored Black Racism whichthis  site was set up to expose.

            Civil servants is a euphemism for unproductive government bureaucrats who are total parasites on producers. FDR,
            a mental cripple, set up a statist society, where producers have to get permission from nonproducers in order to produce.

            Labor leaders are parasites who want to make it impossible for business to provide any jobs but expect an unearned cut if they do. Intellectuals are the frauds on NPR, Pacifica, WashPost, NY Times, Nation, New Republic, Harper’s, Atlantic Monthly,
            NY Review Of Books, ad nauseum, who produce nothing but leftist hot air and lies on everything from race to guns to statism to Israel to Communism to you name it.

            Life did not get better for most Americans until after Roosevelt was dead and the wartime controls were lifted in 1946.

            I conveyed the essentials of those many books in my own words and referenced them to give readers a chance not to blindly accept my arguments but to check out the full documentation themselves in REAL BOOKS and not internet garbage.

            You have never an argument in your life unless it was with yourself.

            The mental cripple Roosevelt had three Leftwing Republicans as fake opponents, Landon, Wilkie and Dewey. In 1940 he lied to get a third term and in 1944 as a wartime President it was impossible to lose. So two of his reelections were frauds. In 1932 he ran against Big Government in the person of New Dealer Herbert Hoover and promised to drastically reduce government, another lying campaign on his part. His Communist wife Eleanor started the whole racial equality nonsense by the FedGov.

            That his mug is on our worthless dimes is perfect ! Just like M.L. King’s depraved visage is in our faces all the time.
            Hardly proves the rightness of leftist causes.

            The GOP has never TRIED to junk his evil programs, who knows what they could do if they really tried.

      • Marcy Fleming

        I notice again that Engelman is up to his old tricks of not leaving a reply button after his assertions.
        Ike was an extreme Left New Dealer and pro-Communist par excellence. Since he expanded the New Deal-Fair Deal programs greatly, why would I be in the slightest impressed by Engelman’s recycling of his defense of the New Deal ?
        Again see The Twenty Year Revolution:From Roosevelt To Eisenhower by Chesly Manly and The Politician by Robert H.W. Welch.
        These two books will tell you all you need to know about this bird.
        This poll Engelman cites on socialist insecurity is flatout BS garbage for morons.
        I meet tons of young people all the time and NONE of them believe in social security or that it be around for them. Most bitterly resent such a large portion of their paychecks going to greedy seniors. Early recipients of SS got back far more than they put in but that has rapidly been changing over the decades.

        Engelman, you have never brought forth any FACTS, well documented or otherwise. You give totally discredited refs on the very few occasions when you give refs at all and most of your refs are dubious polls as if what other people believe determines objective reality. There has been a huge demand to either reform or abolish SS and the lib statist media has largely ignored till now when the crisis, the exhaustion of the reserve fund, is becoming obvious to all but the densest of libtards.

        The unfunded obligations of FedGov for just Medicare and SS are in the tens of trillions and getting worse every year. There are also BOOKS on the Social Security fraud which you can order from Amazon and then get off the net to
        read them.

    • Anonymous

      The “hippies” of whom you disparingly speak were anything but “hedonistic”; indeed, hedonism is pretty much what they were rebelling against.  At any rate, the blacks did a lot more damage than counterculture whites, then and now.  Put it this way:  I’d rather live in Vermont than South Central L.A. 

    • Anonymous

      The “hippies” of whom you disparingly speak were anything but “hedonistic”; indeed, hedonism is pretty much what they were rebelling against.  At any rate, the blacks did a lot more damage than counterculture whites, then and now.  Put it this way:  I’d rather live in Vermont than South Central L.A. 

  • Anonymous

    PHILLY…hard working ASIAN shop owner killed for sport in front of family by (GUESS!!!! THE RACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) 4 (YOUTHS). nothing taken.
    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/four-charged-in-connection-with-pizza-delivery-drivers-shooting-death/

    • That link is about a black pizza delivery guy who was murdered.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Hey Eugene:  Dig this.

    Jan 13:  FL 82 Year Old Homeowner Shoots & Kills Masked Man w/ WW2 Gun

    http://tinyurl.com/7jyyw35

  • Anonymous

    All the Kennedy’s had strong feelings on race.  Their father, Joe carried a resentment for being kept out of country clubs because he was Catholic for one thing.  He made money bootlegging whiskey and had mafia ties.  He had his interests in Hollywood early on as well.  The Kennedy political machine wanted to end the Protestant privilege in America and played right in to the Socialist theorist Herbert Marcuse idea of Critical Theory where you make issues like Civil Rights popular for moving legislation to destroy the status quo forward.  But I think by RFKs time, he believed his own rhetoric.   Ted Kennedy was the consummate Liberal hypocrite, creating social chaos from the comfort of his gated estate.   Joe Kennedy was anti-Semetic, yet corroborated with them politically.  As Ambassador to Britain he was a sympathizer to Hitler and got recalled due to complaints of womanizing – actually chasing an actress around his desk at his office.  The Kennedy’s were/are extreme people, or at least from extreme and complicated (read hypocrite) roots.

    • Marcy Fleming

      Joe was not pro-Hitler, he was anti-US entry into the war for all the right reasons.
      He was anti-Jewish but so were many people without being Nazis.
      Joe was overall a terrible person but he did two great things, he opposed the war
      AND he backed Joe McCarthy.

  • Marcy Fleming

    Oh, please take Ollie Stone nonsense elsewhere. Oswald was a Communist. Period, whether he acted alone or not.

  • Marcy Fleming

    Oh, please take Ollie Stone nonsense elsewhere. Oswald was a Communist. Period, whether he acted alone or not. He was a hardcore Marxist-Leninist.

  • Marcy Fleming

    JFK tied with Goldwater 52-48 (4 points margin of error) in final Gallup Poll.

    • Anonymous

      Can you document that? This is what I found on the internet.
       
      ———-
       
       By Richard Reeves

      In early
      November of 1963, the Gallup Poll gave President John Kennedy a 55-to-39-point
      lead over his  probable 1964
      Republican candidate, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona… 

       

      Kennedy, thought the
      Arizona senator was too conservative or just too dumb to become president.
      “Give me Barry. I won’t even have to leave the Oval Office.”

      http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_not_bachmann_20110405/           

       

    • Anonymous

      Can you document that? This is what I found on the internet.
       
      ———-
       
       By Richard Reeves

      In early
      November of 1963, the Gallup Poll gave President John Kennedy a 55-to-39-point
      lead over his  probable 1964
      Republican candidate, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona… 

       

      Kennedy, thought the
      Arizona senator was too conservative or just too dumb to become president.
      “Give me Barry. I won’t even have to leave the Oval Office.”

      http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_not_bachmann_20110405/           

       

      • Marcy Fleming

        Wrong, the final Gallup Poll was a tie, 52-48 for JFK over Goldwater with a statistical margin of errors of four points. Reeves is a Demo Party hack hagiographer. You need to get other sources than the internet.
        And look at other than your standard left/lib liars for sources.

        • Anonymous

          Where did you get that statistic? I asked you to document it. When I make a factual assertion like that I document it.  
           
          Gallup does provide statistics going back that far, but to access them one needs to be a paid subscriber, and I am not. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          I read it at the time in the Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. It was the last poll taken before JFK’s assassination.
          No, you do not document your assertions, which are very rarely factual, you merely give sources that invariably have been debunked by other sources.

    • Anonymous

      The last “trial heat” the Gallup poll took of JFK versus Goldwater was 
      in October 1963.  The results were as follows: 

      Kennedy            55% 
      Goldwater          39% 
      Others, undecided   6% 

      By region (excluding undecided): 

      East:     Kennedy 63%  Goldwater 37% 
      Midwest:  Kennedy 63%  Goldwater 37% 
      West:     Kennedy 56%  Goldwater 44% 
      South:    Kennedy 45%  Goldwater 55% 

      (Source:  The Gallup Poll:  Public Opinion 1935-71, volume 3, p. 1847) http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/what-if/6784/What-if-Goldwater-defeated-Kennedy                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
      http://brain.gallup.com/documents/questionnaire.aspx?STUDY=AIPO0678                                                    

      • Marcy Fleming

        Not true. Unless I was looking at Harris or some other major poll the last late October or early November, 1963 poll showed a dead heat nationally
        at 52-48 for JFK but due to 4% margin of error that is considered a dead heat by all pollsters.
        I would be the first to concede that Gallup has no credibility as they once had a 1963 poll that showed Rockefeller with a wide lead over Goldwater
        among SOUTHERN Republicans ! Obvious BS. Gallup was an admitted CFR
        Establishment Liberal, I was once interviewed by them in 1978 and their pollster definitely had an agenda during our 90 minutes interview.
        He kept coming back to certain questions AFTER I had given clear answers that he obviously didn’t like.

        • Anonymous

          You have a noticeable willingness to reject facts that are inconsistent with your ideology. 
           
          It is natural to allow one’s likes and dislikes to influence one’s judgment of what is true and false. I do it true. Nevertheless, one should resist this tendency. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          Engelman, getting a little lecture from you on allowing one’s views to influence one’s judgment is like the pot calling the kettle black or the town drunk lecturing on sobriety or getting a lecture from Hitler on anti-Semitism.
          You have yet to give a single fact. You make assertions, I refute those assertions AND then I give book length documentation to back my arguments, not internet sound bites.
          Pot, scrub thyself !

  • Marcy Fleming

    Not true. His invasion of the Universities of Mississipi and Alabama were totally unwarranted and it was leftist administration that was stirring up the violence.

  • Anonymous

    I read the entire “Warren Commission Report” when I was 15 years old and thought to myself “what a crock of . . . .”
    There is much more to the Kennedy assassination than a former Marine “nonqual” with an old bolt action rifle firing off three shots in 4 seconds . . . Oswald was a “patsy” (set-up) from the word go . . . Kennedy was extremely good at making enemies . . .

  • Fast
    forward 45 years and they are still “shoving it down our throats!”
    Now we are expected to swallow ad nauseam pleas regarding amnesty (they call it “immigration
    reform” but they will use any euphemism that makes rewarding criminal invaders
    more palatable) for millions of illegal invading hispanics from mexico!
    Some things never change!

  • Marcy Fleming

    Let me respond to Engelman’s latest lies for the Demos and the New Deal. He gets his stats from the same discredited establishment sources that understate by a half the actual unemployment, they count the army and the millions of nonproductive government employees at all levels but do not count the people who have given up looking and the ones whose benefits have run out. This has been true going back to the New Deal liars. Roosevelt was a pro-Soviet traitor to the US, turned over half the civilized world to the Communists and his New Deal was a total failure as by 1938 unemployment had again reached 1929 levels. See the four books I referenced in my earlier response to Engelman. The CCC and the WPA and the PWA didn’t make a dent in the overall unemployment. FDR’s closest personal aide Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, proving once again that Joe McCarthy UNDERestimated the Soviet infiltration of FedGov under Roosevelt and his openly pro-Communist wife Eleanor, who by the way was the one who kicked off this whole Communist inspired ‘civil rights’ drive.
    Engelman’s BIG LIE that there was more job creation growth under Truman and Carter (!!!)
    has been demolished many times. Truman didn’t dare run for reelection because he was so unpopular in 1952 and Carter was overwhelmingly voted out in 1980.
    Guess the voters  didn’t appreciate that 18% inflation and 21% mortgage interest rates under the pathetic Plains trash, eh ?
    We must beat Obama and CRUSH all Democrats this year, they are a hopeless race-mixing, Communist-Socialist Party. I know the GOP is bad but the Demos are infinitely worse as we can firsthand here in California with Governor Fruitcake.

    • Anonymous

       FDR’s closest personal aide Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, proving once again that Joe McCarthy UNDERestimated the Soviet infiltration of FedGov under Roosevelt. 
      – Marcy Fleming
       
      ————–
       
      George Racey Jordan, a lend-lease major in the Air Force, accused Hopkins of
      passing nuclear weapons plans to the USSR, but a congressional committee stated
      the charges were dubious.[12]           
      It is likely that Soviets who spoke to Hopkins would have been routinely
      required to report the contact to the NKVD,
      the Soviet national security agency. Mark (1998) says that some Soviets such as
      master-spy Iskhak
      Akhmerov thought he was pro-Soviet while others thought he was not.[13] Verne W. Newton,
      author of FDR and the Holocaust, said that no writer discussing Hopkins
      has identified any secrets disclosed, or any decision in which he distorted
      American priorities in order to help Communism.[14]
      As Mark demonstrates, Hopkins was not in fact pro-Soviet in his recommendations
      to FDR, he was anti-German and pro-U.S. Any “secrets” disclosed were authorized.
      Mark says that at this time any actions were taken specifically in order to help
      the American war effort and prevent the Soviets from making a deal with
      Hitler.[15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins

      • Marcy Fleming

        Everything Hopkins did was to benefit the Soviet Union. The Congressional Committee was the same group of New Deal Dems that later whitewashed Owen Lattimore and other Reds whom McCarthy had correctly charged with treason.
        See Blacklisted By History:The Untold Story Of Senator Joe McCarthy And His
        Fight Against America’s Enemies by M. Stanton Evans, Three Rivers Press, 2007.
        Also see From Major Jordan’s Diaries by George Racey Jordan with Richard L. Stokes.
        Quoting from yet another leftist whitewasher won’t do. FDR gave the whole store away to the Soviets and his wartime Vice-President Wallace was either an outright Communist or so close that the difference is indistinguisable.
        See The Politician by Robert H.W. Welch for a massive documentation of Soviet infiltration of FedGov from Roosevelt through Eisenhower.
        FDR And The Holocaust, what a load of bull ! FDR turned back a ship of fleeing Jews in 1938 and he himself never believed the reports of mass extermination of Jews that originated with lying Communist sources and were picked from them by the leftwing self-appointed Jewish leadership here.

        • Anonymous

          FDR gave the whole store away to the Soviets and his wartime Vice-President Wallace was either an outright Communist or so close that the difference is indistinguisable.                                                    
          – Marcy Fleming                                  
                                                                      
          President Roosevelt gave the Soviets nothing. The Soviet Army conquered Eastern Europe.  About 80 percent of German casualties were caused by the Soviet military. 

          • Marcy Fleming

            We gave the Soviets tens of billions in lendlease at a time when Hitler was at the gates of Moscow. Our main enemy was Japan and the Soviets never declared on Japan until the day after Truman’s militarily unnecessary atomic bombing. In fact Stalin had planned to invade German territory but was caught off guard by Hitler’s pre-emptive strike. FDR gave away Poland and the Baltic States and East Europe to the Soviets at Yalta. Communist Alger Hiss was FDR’s key advisor at Yalta.

          • You forgot to mention that the Soviets were allies with Germany and provided the Germans with millions of tons of raw materials prior to June 1941. They also helped the Germans in the invasion of Poland.  Looks like they created the monster that attacked them

        • Anonymous

          Stalin had planned to invade German territory .                                        
          – Marcy Fleming                                
                                    
          ———–                                                                                     After the Second World War Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, of the British Army interviewed a number of German generals and wrote a book entitled, “The German Generals Talk.”  One of the generals he talked to was Karl Rudolf Gerd von Rundstedt, who was a Generalfeldmarschall (Field
          Marshal). This is what Captain Hart wrote about General von Rundstedt on page 171 – 172 of his book: [Gen. Rundstedt] told me: “Hitler insisted that we must strike before Russia became too strong, and that she was much neared striking than we imagined…I was very doubtful about this – and I sound little sign of it when we crossed the frontier. Many of us who had feared such a stroke had been reassured by the way the Russians had remained quiet during our battles in the West, in 1940, when we had our hands full… On my front we found no signs of offensive preparations in the forward zone…they were not in a state of readiness for offensive operations, and hence the Russian Command had not been intending to launch an offensive.”   

          • Marcy Fleming

            The Suvorov and Topitsch books definitively refute Liddell-Hart here. The wartime British Government was mostly Socialist but with many Communist infiltrators and after the war Churchill moaned that ‘we shot the wrong pig.’
            Francis Neilson in his five volume The Tragedy Of Europe discusses the Soviet offensives from 1939 on. Neilson was a close associate of Churchill’s in the UK Liberal Party before WW1.
            David L. Hoggan’s The Forced War also goes into this subject.
            Liddell-Hart is a good military historian but he was dead wrong here.

          • Anonymous

            March Fleming,
             
            In “The German Generals Talk,” Capt. Liddell Hart was not giving his evaluation. He was quoting the evaluations of German generals. 
             
            This is somewhat of a side issue, however. What matters is that Franklin Roosevelt did not give the Russians anything that they did not already have, and the Soviet Union was in no condition after the end of the Second World War to begin a campaign of world conquest. 
             
            At the end of the Second World War the United States greatly overestimated the danger of Soviet aggression, and of Communism in general. 

          • Marcy Fleming

            The German General Staff was frequently wrong, Hitler had a much better sense of strategy, tactics and history than they did.
            One of the few good results of the war was the abolition of the German General Staff.
            I would just refer the readers to the two previous works I recommended documenting Stalin’s intentions to strike first.
            They were already in the process of seizing Bessarabia from the German influence. Both Germany and the USSR merely bought time with the 1939 Treaty.
            Communist subversion worldwide and in the US was a huge problem before, during and after the war.
            Soviet military might was not as I already indicated.

          • Anonymous

            Communist subversion worldwide and in the US was a huge problem before, during and after the war.                                                       
            – Marcy Fleming                      
                                                
            ————                        
                                         
            What do you mean by “Communist subversion?” During the Cold War Communist espionage was a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, members of the American Communist Party and Communist sympathizers had had the Constitutional right to propagate their ideas. Democracy works best when the electorate is exposed to diverse opinions. This includes American Renaissance, and the American Communist Party. 

        • Anonymous

          During the Second World war the Soviet Union lost about thirty million dead, and one third of its industrial and farm plant. No country that had suffered like this was about to embark on a campaign of world conquest, but American post war foreign policy assumed that it was.
                         
          A certain amount of tension was probably inevitable after the Second World War, but the United States could have acted unilaterally to reduce the tension. 
                                        
          Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. It only succeeded in countries where right wing dictators suppressed impoverished populaces on behalf of parasitic oligarchies.  Even then it usually failed. 
                                        
          President Roosevelt did not give the Soviets anything. The Soviet Army conquered Eastern Europe. A number of Eastern European countries, like Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria had been allies of Germany. The only way to get the Russians out of Eastern Europe was to fight them. Fortunately, that option was never seriously considered.     

          • Marcy Fleming

            They didn’t lose anywhere near 30 million in the war. They were 30-35 million SHORT in the 1937 Census because the Communists had already killed that many people, if not 10 million more.
            Victor Suvorov has written Chief Culprit:Stalin’s Grand Design To
            Start World War as well as two other books on the subject.
            Stalin’s War by Ernitsch Topitsch exposed this even before Victor’s works back in the 90s. Hitler simply beat Stalin to the punch. His attack on the USSR was not unprovoked.
            Communist subversion was a major threat as the Venona Papers,
            several books by Harvey Klehr and others AND as M. Stanton Evans massively documents in his book on McCarthy, Blacklisted
            By History. Soviet agents went as high as Harry Hopkins who lived in the White House, J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the inventors of  and advocates for the war crime atomic bombings. FDR told Martin Dies, Chair of HUAC, that many of his (FDR’s) best friends were Communists and Eleanor Roosevelt belonged to 120 Communist fronts while the wartime Vice-President Henry A. Wallace was so pro-Communist that in 1948 he ran for on the Progressive Party ticket for President and that party was totally by the Communist Party USA. The whole Communist project was NEVER a military threat to the US but one of subversion to turn the US into a Socialist country to make its ultimate merger with the USSR in a one world government, something the Communist infiltrated Ford and Rockefeller Foundations were openly advocating by the late 1950s.
            NATO and the unnecessary tens of trillions for ‘defense’ was a Liberal Democratic Party socialist boondoggle from beginning to end. Truman himself regarded Ike as a New Deal Democrat up to
            January, 1952 and leftwing Dems like Jimmy Roosevelt and the ADA tried to get Ike to run for the Demo ticket against Truman in 1948. He came close to doing it.
            The Cold War was used as an excuse by the LibDems to push civil wrongs forced integration legislation, to get FedGov bigtime into education and numerous other socialist objectives.
            The Soviets plans for world conquest were always 99% subversion
            around the world. Their vaunted military machine had a hard time subduing Finland in 1940. They had their hands full in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. When Stalin defeated Trotsky in 1923-24 they dropped the idea of military interventions and settled for internal subversion.
            Most of the so-called ‘rightwing’ states were statist socialist economies run by families like Somoza, Trujillo, Stroessner, etc. And they were far better than what replaced them, Castro, Mao, the Sandinistas, etc. Guatemala is the worst of the so-called rightwing states but still can’t hold a candle to the barbaric Communist regimes.
            Allende was preparing Chile for a full fledged Communist state with neighborhood watch groups a la Castro when he was deposed with the loss of only three thousand leftist lives.

          • Anonymous

            They didn’t lose anywhere near 30 million in the war.              
            – Marcy Fleming    
                  
            ————-                          
                              
            26,600,000 seems to be the consensus estimate.
                    
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union#Total_losses 

          • Anonymous

            The whole Communist project was NEVER a military threat to the US but one of subversion to turn the US into a Socialist country.           
            – Marcy Fleming
                
            ————     
            Unlike you perhaps, I have known American Communist Party members. They were infinitely charming, but rather silly, and incapable of starting a meeting on time, let alone overthrowing the government of the United States. The American Communist Party was never much more than a Marxist discussion group.
             
            On the other hand, socialism is becoming a more popular ideal in the United States.
             
            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/socialist-slur-poll-finds/story?id=10565255#.TyX16MX-840 
             
            If the United States moves in a socialist direction the movement will be democratic, and consequently legitimate.     

    • Anonymous

      The CCC and the WPA and the PWA didn’t make a dent in the overall unemployment.                                                                                  
      – Marcy Fleming
                                                                                             
      ———-                   
                                                          
      When Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6 percent.  In 1940 when he was reelected for the second time it had declined to 14.6 percent. 
       
      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html 
       
      There was nearly as much economic growth during President Roosevelt’s first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. 
       
      http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html
       
      These are among the reasons FDR was elected president four times, and why it has never been possible for Republicans to repeal the reforms of the New Deal. 

      • Marcy Fleming

        Outside of the fact that the unemployment figures are always inaccurately understated, it’s interesting that you use late 1940 as your guideline since this was after FDR’s war buildup that had been going for almost two years then, since early 1939. In 1938 even the official stats were close to 1932 levels and no economist has ever believed that the CCC, WPA and PWA made any real dent in the overall unemployment rate.
        The statement about growth in FDR’s first term being close to Harding and Coolidge is an unadulterated lie on a par with your ‘Carter had more economic growth than Reagan’ baloney previously posted here on another thread.
        The only reason the New Deal was not repealed was because the GOP never tried.
        In fact it was greatly expanded under both Eisenhower and later Nixon.
        Reagan’s feeble attempts were half-hearted at best. See Reagan:A Political Autopsy by Murray Rothbard, which was originally printed in Liberty Magazine in 1989 and can be downloaded from the lew rockwell.com website.
        FDR only won in 1940 because he lied through his teeth and repeatedly said he was not going to send American boys into the European war. Robert Sherwood
        in Roosevelt and Hopkins admits that he was the author of those lying speeches and says he cringed whenever he heard them. The 1944 reelection was guaranteed because the war was still on.
        In 1940 FDR’s leftist GOP opponent Wendell Wilkie had the identical foreign policy and later a Communist ghostwrote Wilkie’s book, One World.
        FDR’s opponents in 1936 and 1944, Landon and Dewey were statist libs with very little difference between them and FDR as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Court Historian for both Roosevelt and the Kennedy Punks, noted.
        FDR won 1932 by running against Hoover’s Big Government AND the statist
        Republican Prohibition. Even Ayn Rand voted for him then !
        Nice try, Engleman, but light years from a cigar.
        The last thing we need is more of that New Deal-Fair Deal-New Frontier-Great Society-Obamanomics that is deeply poisoning us.
        Go back to your New York Times and NPR and go back to sleep.

        • Marcy Fleming

          Mr. Engelman, you are as unwarrantedly presumptous as you are historically obtuse.
          My Mother, Sara Israel, is a fourth generation Communist.
          My hometown, San Francisco, long ago replaced New York City as the Communist capital.
          Furthermore, many of the most dangerous Communists like Alger Hiss and J Robert Oppenheimer were not known to be Communists to the rank and file. Many worked in the New Deal and in the Democratic Party and posed in the usual ‘liberal’ guise.
          Read Men Without Faces:The Communist Conspiracy In The USA by Louis Budenz, Harper & Bros., 1950.
          Read The Cry Is Peace by Louis Budenz, Regnery, 1952.
          He was a top official in the CPUSA.
          Read The Twenty Year Revolution:From Roosevelt To Eisenhower by Chesly Manly, Regnery, 1954. He was a top political reporter for the Chicago Tribune when it was a great newspaper.
          Read The Haunted Wood:Soviet Espoinage In America-The Stalin Era
          by Allen Weinstein & Alexander Vasssiliev, Random House, 1999.
          The Democratic Party here in northern California was the preferred vehicle for most Communists to work in. People from John Conyers to
          Bell Abzug to Ronald Dellums to George Crockett to Samuel Dickstein
          (founder of HUAC !) were just some of the Democrats in Congress who were Communists too. FDR gave carte blanche to the Communists, his wartime VP and wife were likely Communists and Hiss and Hopkins were Soviet agents.
          Communist meetings always start on time as I know from personal experience AND they want to take over FedGov and local bodies, NOT overthrow. Your confusing them with the old SDS.
          They had many discussions but were far from being nonactive politically and they were actively supported throughout by Soviet funds.
          Hitler was democratically elected, so what ? Socialism is the exact same Marxist doctrine as Communism and thus it can never be legitimate.
          The Communist stage comes with the withering away of the state.
          Which never happens.
          Socialism has no mass support in the USA and is only supported by the ghetto lumpen Blacks and the type of garbage that violently seized the private Zuccoti Park in NYC.
          If it ever should get established it will be properly violently overthrown as was Allende in Chile. Whenever you see an Allende remember there is always a Pinochet around the corner. We have every right to overthrow any regime that restricts individual rights including property rights
          and corporations which are solely made up of individuals.
          Come to think of it so is every other group.
          The USA is a Republic, the Founders considered democracy to be the worst of all forms of government, see The Federalist Papers.
          The Democrat Party since Bryan and Wilson, both lunatics, has been a Socialist-Communist operation. Hitler’s 1920 NSDAP Platform reads like a modern Democrat Party Platform from the 40s on.
          Only addlepated readers of the New York Times and NPR listeners believe
          socialism is the wave of the future.
          AND what you doing here ? AmRen was set up precisely to fight the type of policies pushed by the Demonrats since at least Wilson.

          • Marcy Fleming

            Consensus estimates always mean whatever particular lie line is set by the Liberal Establishment.
            At Nuremberg the Auschwitz toll was 9 million, then later 4 million, the after the fall of Communism 1.5 million, then 1 million, then 750,000, now lower still and we haven’t hit bottom yet.
            Ergo with numbers of Black slaves to western hemisphere, from 100 million down to over 9 million.
            American Indians from 10-20 million down to 1-2 million.
            The Communist victims’ keep increasing because they were always denied or minimized to begin with.

          • Marcy Fleming

            Read the Weinstein book and several other books I referenced if you want to find out about Communist subversion. Read The Web Of Subversion by James Burnham, 1953. The party was engaged in a subversive plot to take over the US through infiltration of government, the academe, Hollywood, the major media to convert the US into a socialist state that could be merged into a one world government with the USSR and others.
            The Party members’ subversion went way beyond actual espionage.
            Yes, they were also a political party with constitutional rights but they were also an arm of the USSR. McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover opposedHubert Humprey’s demagogic attempt to outlaw the CPUSA in 1954.

          • Anonymous

            When someone gives me a reading list I know I’ve won the argument. 
             
            If you have something to say, present your arguments in your own words, using the internet to substantiate specific facts. If you cannot do that I will continue to assume that you read all that stuff without assimilating it, without understanding it at all, or that you did not even read it. 
             
            Just because someone writes a book making outlandish charges does not mean that the outlandish charges are true. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          Engelman, the purpose of a reading list is to give full documentation to what are necessarily brief arguments on a venue such as this.
          I have given the necessary brief arguments refuting your assertions but have not left it to interested to simply take my word and thus have provided them with the full documentation to back up my comments.
          Why should we only rely on the internet ? BOOKS are valuable things, how would KNOW something’s outlandish unless you read it to see the author’s reasoning ? You in fact have referenced a few books when it suited you, I have referenced many more which specifically refute those books.
          Why would you stupidly think I have not assimiliated these books ?
          It would take a book length essay here to give all the reasoning and why should I reinvent the wheel for you ?
          That you are scared to read other views has long been apparent.
          Based on your performance here I doubt that you have ever won any argument (whatever that means) except in your own mind.

          • Anonymous

            I’ m fairly well read too, but I do not say, “Read this. It proves I’m right.” I compose my own arguments, using the internet to document factual assertions.  

          • Marcy Fleming

            I notice that when you post lately you remove the reply, which is strange. But I do respond to your assertions anyway.
            I believe in giving references for the reasons I’ve already cited.
            I will leave it up to the readers to see if it proves my arguments or not.
            I compose my own arguments but realize that in a very limited venue like this they are assertions that need documentation.
            I do not feel I’m limited to the internet for sources BUT people here can go to Amazon on the web to purchase the many books I recommend.
            Your well read ok but it’s the same old Liberal Establishment garbage that a site like this is set up to fight.

  • Anonymous

    I do not believe that “Marxist troublemakers” needed to tell Negros in the the South that they did not like being denied basic rights, like the right to vote, and that they resented being denied service in restaurants, hotels, and motels.  

    • Nobody denied them service in black owned restaurants and hotels. Are we supposed to believe that blacks never ate out or slept in a motel or hotel before the civil rights act?

      Let’s see if a white man can walk into a black bar or club and receive service today

      • Anonymous

        I’ve never had any trouble. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          You don’t live in Oakland or DC or a hundred other places.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t live in Oakland or DC or a hundred other places. 
          – Marcy Fleming ———-     
          I grew up in the Washington, DC area. I often go back for visits. When I lived in the San Francisco Bay area I often visited Oakland. The city I live in now is about half black. I know blacks well enough not to have illusions about them as a race, and well enough to like many of them. 

        • Marcy Fleming

          That you could grow in DC and live in the Bay area AND still take the absurd political positions that you do is evidence of an overwhelming obtuseness that beggars description.

    • Marcy Fleming

      King was indeed a Marxist Socialist with total Communist Party USA backing.
      There is no right to service on someone else’s  property.
      The protests against LAWS limiting access was correct as government has no right to discriminate since we are all forced to support it.
      But King went way beyond simply protesting Jim Crow Laws to initiating physical force by violating property rights with sit-ins.
      The only thing wrong was with the restrictive voting laws in the South was that they should have been applied across the board and that has long since been remedied in the mostly Deep South states that were the problem.
      The Voting Rights Law of 1965 should have been allowed to sunset as originally scheduled but it has been renewed for Democrat Party political purposes.
      As to how and why Communist agitators have exploited and worsened the situation in the South AND the whole country, see It’s Very Simple:The True Story Of Civil Rights, by Alan Stang, Western Islands, 1965. You can probably get it on Amazon or Halfcom or Abe Books.

      • Anonymous

        King went way beyond simply protesting Jim Crow Laws to initiating physical force by violating property rights with sit-ins.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
        – Marcy Fleming                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                              
        ——————-                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
        The sit in demonstrators did not initiate the violence by waiting to be served. Those who attacked them initiated the violence.                                              
            

        • Marcy Fleming

          They indeed initiated force by an unlawful occupation of someone else’s property.
          You have no right to wait to be served by someone who does not wish to serve you.
          It would be no different in principle if someone occupied your property, business or personal, and then claimed that YOU initiated force by properly throwing them out.
          There is no such thing as a peaceful occupation of someone else’s property.
          Same principle applies to the OWS thugs taking over a private park in NYC.