Obama’s ‘FDR’ plan exposed?

Many were left to ponder what Barack Obama meant when he used his Democratic National Convention speech last week to call for “the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

Two bestselling authors believe they may have solved that puzzle by uncovering progressive plans for Obama’s second term that may include the re-creation of a 21st century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration as part of a massive government-funded jobs program.

During his DNC speech, Obama declared: “It will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

The president did not specify which possible methods of “experimentation” he had in mind, but in the recently released book “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott document second term plans that come right from FDR’s playbook, most prominently an updated version of the WPA within the Department of Labor.

“Fool Me Twice” documents how progressive groups tied to the White House back the 2011 21st Century Works Progress Administration Act. The legislation would “immediately put Americans to work rebuilding our nation and strengthening our communities,” according to its literature.

The 21st century reincarnation of Roosevelt’s WPA would operate under the auspices of a Works Progress Administration created within the Department of Labor and headed by the secretary of labor.

Read more here.

‘Government Control’: Beck Uncovers Origins of Obama Movie ‘The Road We’ve Traveled’

“The Road We’ve Traveled” is an Obama campaign short movie — or alternatively dubbed “docu-ganda” — that, to many, is a stunningly fawning 17-minute account of what the filmmaker posits are the president’s myriad “accomplishments” during his first term.

“Remember how far we’ve come,” opens director Davis Guggenheim’s film. Guggenheim, of course, made waves recently when he asserted that the only “negative” about President Obama is that he has too many positives.

But where does the title and theme for Obama’s mini propagandist piece hail from? Glenn Beck went digging and thinks he might have found the answers in a book from 1942.

First, a recap of the film. From the movie’s YouTube page:

This film gives an inside look at some of the tough calls President Obama made to get our country back on track. Featuring interviews from President Bill Clinton, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Elizabeth Warren, David Axelrod, Austan Goolsbee, and more. It’s a film everyone should see.

For reference, “The Road We’ve Traveled” is featured below in its entirety.

During his Monday morning radio broadcast, Beck reiterated an important observation he made last Friday, and discussed the uncanny resemblance Obama’s movie bears to a book titled, ”The Road We Are Traveling 1914-1942.”

Written by FDR-admirer Stuart Chase, the book focuses on America once it has dispensed with free enterprise entirely. Chase wrote that while he could call this new society “communist, state capitalist, or fascist,“ he preferred the more ambiguous ”Political System X.”

Read more here.

Today’s PC police would arrest Abe Lincoln for sedition

By: Douglas MacKinnon

During his first inaugural address in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously but inaccurately claimed that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Leaving aside the fact that 77 years later, many of Roosevelt’s socialist leanings serve as a roadmap for President Obama, the inescapable reality of 2010 is that the only thing we have to fear is political unaccountability, an unethical media, liberal judicial activists, and those among us who want and demand something for nothing.

If you are a citizen who still believes in traditional values and the need for a free, strong and secure America, then it’s well past the time to make your voice heard.

At the risk of being accused of inciting sedition by ultra-wealthy, far-left “journalist” Joe Klein, I would stress if not now, when? If not you, who?

As an aside to Klein, who apparently, as he runs around purposely twisting the words of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, by claiming they come “dangerously close to incitement to violence,” has never read the writings of well-known seditionists Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

To that very point, Lincoln once said, “this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Sacrilege. Had Lincoln uttered those very words today, Klein, the editorial board of The New York Times, and the inhabitants of the West Wing would have called for his imprisonment.

More than imprisonment, all but confirmed Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan would have stated Lincoln’s belief deserved no First Amendment protection.

That assumption being based on the liberal Kagan’s own words who has chillingly said in the past, “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

While Chief Justice Roberts called Kagan’s argument “startling and dangerous,” the mainstream media has done all in its power to keep this totalitarian declaration from the American people.

Beyond liberal judicial activism and the propagandists for the far-left in the media, our welfare, security, and very existence are being threatened by elected officials from both sides of the aisle who see the rapidly descending blade and purposefully ignore it as they suicidally focus on their own selfish needs.

Were it not for the fact they are about to take the rest of us with them, their extinction would be a welcome relief.

To ensure the demise of our once great nation, we are also being assaulted by an unimaginable and lethal U.S. debt combined with the out-of-control salaries and pensions of local, state, and federal employees and the unions who seek to protect and grow that money at any cost.

As one county employee in Maryland recently told me, “As long as I get mine, I honestly don’t care about the rest of the country.”

While we all now recognize that Los Angeles and California are the Athens and Greece of the United States, we need to understand that they are but the poster children for what is about to befall us.

On a recent trip to Miami, I was disturbed but not shocked to find out that while the median income for the hardworking citizens of that city is about $26,000, the median income of the city employees is about $76,000. Triple that of those who pay their salaries.

Worse, thanks to union threats and liberal leaders, almost 100 city workers in that all but bankrupt city “earned” over $200,000. Can you say “unsustainable?”

Roosevelt was wrong, as are all today who believe in something for nothing. It’s not fear we have to worry about.

It’s the minority among us who deliberately steal, lie, brainwash our children, and leave our borders and nation unprotected, that we have to not only shield ourselves from, but defeat before it’s too late.

That is the calling for the majority. Let us hope it does not fall on deaf or compromised ears.

The New Deal as Revolution

Whittaker Chambers at His Desk at Time Magazine

by Alan Snyder

Whittaker Chambers had a secret. He had worked in the American Communist underground for most of the 1930s. His break from that underground had been hazardous; he hid his family for quite some time before surfacing. When he did, his unique writing talent earned him a place at Time magazine, where he eventually rose to be one of its senior editors.

In 1939, with the outbreak of WWII, Chambers decided he needed to inform the FDR administration of what he knew about those currently working in the underground. Through an intermediary, he obtained an interview with Adolf Berle, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of security. During his evening with Berle, Chambers disclosed a long list of individuals who could be threats to the country during a war that he sensed the U.S. would eventually have to enter.

Berle seemed alarmed by the revelations. Chambers was relieved that now the truth would come out. Yet when Berle took this information to FDR, he was rudely dismissed—FDR didn’t care.

When Chambers finally realized the administration was apathetic to the traitors in its midst, he had to reassess what he knew of FDR and his policies. In his classic autobiography, Witness, he describes how this rebuff affected him:

And with astonishment I took my first hard look at the New Deal. . . . All the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends. I myself thought of the New Deal as a reform movement that, in social and labor legislation, was belatedly bringing the United States abreast of Britain or Scandinavia.

What shocked Chambers was that he recognized for the first time that the New Deal was far more than a reform movement. It was ”a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

This “revolution” was not taking the same form as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, but its effect was just as sinister:

It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution.

Chambers was quite prescient in this analysis. American historians have long noted that in the last half of the nineteenth century, presidents played second fiddle to business leaders. This never sat well with progressives. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson made strides in the shift to power politics, but they suffered a setback in the 1920s under Harding and Coolidge, who were ingrained with the principles of self-government and sanctity of private property.

Then came the Depression and all the wonders that government could perform to ease the plight of the American people. Chambers saw that even though the New Deal was not an overt socialist/communist ploy, it worked in tandem with that philosophy. New Dealers, most of whom would have never considered themselves either socialists or communists, were, due to their progressive policies, fellow-travelers. As Chambers explains,

Thus men who sincerely abhorred the word Communism, in the pursuit of common ends found that they were unable to distinguish Communists from themselves, except that it was just the Communists who were likely to be most forthright and most dedicated in the common cause.

Critics of Witness often howled at Chambers’s association of liberals with socialists and communists. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, they cried. Yet Chambers put his own reputation on the line giving his witness before Congress in 1948, as he testified in the landmark Alger Hiss case. He knew, from personal experience, that the difference between liberalism and communism was in degree only: both put their faith in man and rejected faith in God; therefore, they shared a common worldview.

Chambers summarized the symbiotic relationship quite nicely:

Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. . . . The Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: “Witch hunt!” for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense.

Some things don’t change: we are still undergoing a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking, and we continue to hear the snarls of “witch hunt” whenever this revolution is challenged. What we need now is the same tenacity shown by Chambers. He completed his “witness.” What will we do?