Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

Obamavel

Note: Like any other young boy who just reached 13 years of age in 1933, I didn't know a whole lot about life. Except, of course, those lessons of life that every boy's dad taught him. Basic things. About chores around the house and other things. "Character builders," Dad used to call them. As a kid, I didn't consciously realize there was a Stock Market Crash in 1929 because kids don't understand what those things mean. Oh, don't get me wrong. I knew something bad happened to Main Street America, and I knew something wasn't right in Dad's business. But I didn't know why. Dad would get very somber when he listened to the news on the radio. Even a kid who doesn't know anything knows when something's wrong. But Dad never burdened us with "grown-up stuff" because, well, it's tough enough for a kid growing up in hard times.

From the things Mom and Dad said to one another when they thought we weren't paying any attention, I was smart enough to put two-and-two together. I knew that a lot of people around the country lost their homes. And almost everyone lost all or part of their life savings. These were tough times for everyone. While most Americans—and history—blamed Herbert Hoover, Dad wisely blamed Roosevelt. That's one thing I do remember. He damned Roosevelt quite often. On March 4, 1933, the day he became President of the United States, Roosevelt declared a national emergency (which he blamed on Herbert Hoover), and closed every bank and savings and loan company in the United States. Some of them reopened. Some didn't. While Roosevelt blamed the nation's misfortunes on the previous administration, Dad correctly blamed Roosevelt. But Hoover carried the blame through history. Obama plans to do the same—blame the results of everything that happens during his watch on the guy before him.

What bothered Dad most was that FDR, like a common highwayman armed with loaded pistols, seized the gold that backed our money that rightly belonged to the taxpayers who possessed it. Under the threat of 10 years in prison and a $10 thousand fine for keeping the wealth that rightly belonged to them, US citizens were ordered to surrender their gold certificates and gold coins to the bank and accept fiat scrip (money backed by nothing but the government's word. And, you and I both know just about how much that's worth.) Roosevelt's New Deal proved to be a Raw Deal for most of America's small business owners. Dad was no exception. FDR's New Deal drove him out of business. Dad fought Roosevelt in the political arena until FDR died on April 12, 1945.

In 1946, Dad founded Aetna Scientific in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The name of Dad's company morphed into a procession of names as the company evolved and then died before his death. When Dad passed on, I bought his latest corporate name, Consolidated, for $100. And with the last $500 in my financial world, I quit my day job and launched what ultimately became Consolidated Stills & Sterilizers.

We manufactured autoclaves and water stills for the Dept. of Defense. Today, Consolidated, located in Boston, makes some of the finest, most reliable distillation stills and sterilizers in the world. Our products are sold in over 70 countries. While I never thought I would end up picking up the FDR-gauntlet Dad dropped with the passing of Roosevelt, yet here I am—looking at a brand new, wannabe Franklin D. Roosevelt. Wouldn't you know, I've become my Dad. But, that's okay with me. My Dad was tough as nails, but he was an okay guy whom history proved was correct in his condemnation of Roosevelt.

 

ould it surprise you much to learn that newly-inaugurated President Barack Hussein Obama's promised "change" won't be any type of real change after all? At least, not in the beginning. In the beginning, the change Barack Obama has planned for America will look like more of the same inside-the-beltway garbage-can politics that Washington political hucksters have promulgated over the last three-quarters of a century. When the smoke clears, and the shift from Bushism to Obamaism takes place (i.e., the shift from the free market economy to socialism), those who study politics closely will note that Obama's changes will be nothing more than the rehashing of the changes promulgated by our 32nd president. We are about to get a real stiff dose of 1933 New Dealism—with a twist. Compared to eight years of Ronald Reagan, 12-years of Bush-41 and Bush-43 with 8 years of Bill and Hillary Clinton wedged in between, Obama's brand of socialism will appear uncannily Rooseveltian to Washington-watchers.

Not surprising, Obama borrowed heavily from Roosevelt when he structured his own inaugural address just as he borrowed heavily from Roosevelt throughout his entire presidential campaign. Most of his campaign speeches reeked of New Deal rhetoric. Roosevelt promised a nonspecific "new deal for the working man." Obama promised an even less specific "change" to the multiracial throngs which flocked to him like lost souls to a messiah. Addressing smaller African American groups when the TV lights were off, Obama promised that he would redistribute the wealth of the white middle class to bring economic equality to the poor. But these speeches were not broadcast on primetime. Only people who found the YouTube.com videos of those speeches ever knew what was really said because the Obama pundits denied it on the weekend news talk shows. (The video on the left, Peggy Joseph caught by a local NBC affiliate, is probably one of the most viewed videos of the election. Over 1,547,763 people watched the video. Add to that websites that put up their own versions, and radio talk show hosts that played the audio portion of the videos, probably 3 to 4 million people saw or heard this out-take from the news.) While most people thought it was amusing, it is actually very scary when you think about it because it is the intent of the communist far left in the United States to make an "equality adjustment" in the pockets of Americans. Remember Obama's pledge to the NAACP during their 99th Annual Conference on July 14, 2008? "Social justice," he said, "is not enough. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch." Obama then chastised the US Supreme Court for not dealing with the redistribution of wealth issue in order to establish economic parity. "But the Supreme Court," he added, "never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth and...[the]...issue of political and economic justice in this society....[T]he [Supreme Court] interpreted in the same way that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do to you. It says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the State government must do on your behalf."

In point of fact, the Constitution's function was solely to make it clear what the government cannot do. The rest is up to you. The Founding Fathers never intended that government would provide people with grand gratuities like welfare just because people might not like the jobs that were available to them. The only gratuity found in the Constitution of the United States is the guarantee that people have an inalienable the right to compete on an equal playing field for whatever place they want to carve for themselves in the American society. In other words, you don't have a right to demand the fruits of the sweat I invested in growing a business and providing for my familynor does the politician who is willing to steal from me to get your vote. It is not my obligation to take care of you. Stop complaining. Get a job. So what if its beneath "your dignity" if it allows you to feed and clothe your family? And don't tell me you don't have equal opportunities after a half a century of equal rights laws.

A black man, born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia, decided to become the President of the United States. Guess what? Today, Barack Obama is the President. That tells me that anyone can be anything they want to be in this society if they are willing to work hard enough to achieve their goals. A poor man, born in a log cabin in Illinois, decided he was going to be President. Guess what? Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. So, don't blame the color of your skin, or the economic misfortunes of your birth on your station in life. Blame yourself.

Regardless of your ethnicentricity or economic happenstance, God gave you the same thing he gave me. Two arms. Two legs. Two eyes. Two ears, a mouth and a brain. Use them. If He gave you less than that, then society needs to provide a helping hand. And, when you get as old as sin (like me), then government needs to step in again. But other than that, the Founding Fathers expected government to get out of the way and let people prosper because that's the only way people prosper—when government gets out of their way.

The communist far left, starting with Roosevelt and culminating with Obama—and what will prove to be a "Jimmy Carter radical left administration"—believes the "state" has a moral obligation to provide economic parity by robbing the middle class to provide economic equality for the poor. They see themselves as "Robin Hood" when, in reality, they are no different than John Dillinger or Ma Barker except the gun they use in their stickup is the double-barreled bureaucracy of the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

Obama, in his dialogue about the high court not dealing with the redistribution of wealth noted, in conclusion, "...the civil rights movement became so court focused that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." In 1933 newly-elected Franklin D. Roosevelt believed the only way to fix America was through economic equality. When everyone was completely equal, wars would end, racial injustices would cease, and mankind would live in an economic utopia. That is pure communism. That was FDR's dream, and that is the change Obama plans to bring to America.

Carol Browner, the eco-nut, Al Gore-picked, Gaia-worshipping, EPA Director during the Clinton years (1993-2001) who is Obama's pick as Climate Czar was—until Jan. 8, 2009 (just before Obama nominated her as the White House Coordinator of Climate and Energy Policy)—one of the 14-senior leaders of the Socialist International (i.e., communist) Commission for a Sustainable World Society which is calling for world government. On Jan. 8, Browner's name and bio were quietly removed from the Socialist International website. I guess Obama believes in "out-of-sight and you can deny it." From her Clinton Administration days, Browner has believed that the rich countries in the world must shrink their economies to address climate change. In reality, like the rest of the world's watermelons (environmental green on the outside, communist red on the inside), downsizing the economies of the industrialized nations is simply the tool the globalists decided would work best to provide the human capital in the third world with incomes to become the primary consumers of the 21st century.

Clearly, the American people must really like grab bags regardless what's inside them, because without demanding that either Roosevelt or Obama be specific on what type of change they would bring to the job, the American people, who abhor communism, elected two of them to the highest office in the land. It's no wonder the media saw parallels between Obama and our 32nd and 35th presidents. Obama carefully, and with much intent, wove those parallels into his speeches.

And why not? Roosevelt , the only person elected to the office of President four times, knew you had to sound like a winner to be a winner. The Kenyan-born, Indonesian-raised former State and US Senator whose citizenship is still in doubt by scores of Americans is a natural-born huckster just like Roosevelt. Obama also quoted former President Harry S. Truman at length. But Obama probably doesn't want to be mistaken for America's haberdasher president since Truman make it clear during the seven years he spent in the White House that the buck stopped at his desk. Obama, like Roosevelt, would much rather the buck continued to stop at George W. Bush's desk.

Expect the Obama Administration and the US House and Senate leadership to spend the next four years blaming Obama's predecessor for the financial collapse caused by the subprime mortgage debacle (in which the Clinton Congress enacted a law which obligated US banks to extend mortgage loans to credit unworthy minority home buyers with Fannie Mae guaranteeing the loans), the corporate bailouts and what will likely be a decade-long recession or depression where the only real job growth will come from the creation of public sector jobs at the expense of the taxpayers.

In the weeks between winning the Election of 2008 and his formal "coronation" on the Capitol steps before a massive crowd of well-wishers chanting "Obama! Obama!", Obama's entourage became clothed in Roosevelt tweed, speaking of the financial crisis that needed to be solved. In his inaugural address, Obama said: "That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war...or economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility..." In 1932, in a world in which the nations of Europe were nationalizing their banks and their industries, and Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union had become dictatorships, Roosevelt spoke of the crisis of his time, assuring Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. On the campaign trail in the Puget Sound area of Washington State in Sept., 1932, FDR promised "...a measure of hope in the midst of crisis." While Obama was careful not to plagiarize entire FDR speeches, he liberally helped himself to untraceable excerpts from the speeches of FDR delivered in parallel moments of history.

The solutions proposed by Obama—sans an $850 billion bailout—is textbook Roosevelt. With unemployment now growing to record levels not seen since the Carter years with massive levels of Americans losing their homes, banks failing, and the threat of world war looming from hot spots in two different areas of the globe, the world in which Obama campaigned for the White House parallels the world in which Roosevelt, campaigning on the promise of a "new deal" for the common man, was greeted as the Messiah of the 1930s. When Roosevelt campaigned in the Puget Sound area around Tacoma, Washington in 1932, over 100 thousand cheering, idol-worshipping fans, desperate for hope in deepening recession, showered the New York governor with flower petals and confetti. Obama, campaigning on the promise of "change," was idolized by the idiot fringe that lives in the brainless world of celebrity worship.

In Roosevelt's world, economic justice would be achieved by taking the unspent wealth from what he described as the "rich" (i.e., the still employed middle class with money in the bank) and giving it to the unemployed common man. Obama assured his constituents that he worked his "...entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice [would be] served. [As president, I'll] make sure that economic justice is served. That's what this election [was] about. At that moment, you and I will truly know that a new day has come to the country we love." In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama promised to "...recast the welfare net that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson cast, while rolling back the winner-take-all market economy that Ronald Reagan re-ignited."

That's what he said in Audacity of Hope. On the floor of Congress, economic justice took on the texture of redistribution of wealth. Beginning with Obama's latest stimulus package when the bill was debated before the House Ways & Means Committee on January 9, 2009. Obama economic advisor and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Congressman Charlie Rangel are advocating that economic parity, i.e., economic justice, can only be achieved if the bailout package is used to redistribute wealth by making sure the tax dollars of white taxpayers are used specifically to fund jobs for black companies and, more specifically, black workers.

When he addressed the House Ways & means Committee on January 7—two days after the 111th Congress was installed, Reich, speaking on behalf of the President-elect from Obama's redistribution script, said that "...Infrastructure spending...will stimulate the economy." Reich noted that the stimulus dollars should be spent on projects that "...have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs simply not go high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers, I'm just saying there are other people who have needs as well....Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities, women and people who are not necessarily construction workers or high skilled professionals."

Rangel agreed, adding that "...We're going to have to establish formulas where governors are going to have to find some formula to find out how to get the money where the hemorrhages are. At the end of the day we know where the joblessness is, where the fears are, and we can get the federal formulas to target the relief to those communities. We don't have to worry about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad they have to put food on the table [and] get clothes for their kid...I think we can get rid of some of the fears by mandating the criteria and formulas."

The Obama far left, like the Roosevelt far left before him, used a contrived national crisis to implement socialist change in the Untied States that could not be implemented without a crisis of some type justifying the actions of Congress and the White House under the guise of a national emergency. In Roosevelt's case, the national emergency was subterfuge fabricated by the barons of banking and business to redefine the free market economy. They created a financial crisis resulting from the Stock Market Crash in 1929. Obama's financial crisis came from the collapse of the subprime mortgage business that toppled several major banks in the United States and around the world. There would not have been a crisis at all had the Federal Reserve not stepped in and declared several banks to be "insolvent," causing the collapse of those banks. Add further meddling from the Federal Reserve and a full-blown national finance crisis was born, generating the same type of voter reaction in the Election of 2008 that it did in 1932, ostensibly giving Obama the same type of "mandate" it provided Roosevelt in 1932.

Even with recessions caused by each decade's own financial crisis, when Americans awoke on both January 1, 1933 and January 1, 2009, the United States still enjoyed the world's most resilient free market economy in both decades. By January 1, 1934, with just a little free enterprise tampering by Roosevelt, the United States began a decade-long depression. Obama's $850 billion stimulus package will be followed by a $1 trillion dollar stimulus package that will completely bankrupt America's shrinking middle class. Like Roosevelt, permanent political change will accompany massive entitlement spending aimed at providing "economic justice" as the redistribution of wealth in America becomes a stark reality.

To safeguard that Obama's policy of economic justice will permanently change the status quo, the far left will resort to the same tactics they used successfully several times since the Vietnam era. As the voters tire of the left's experiments in watered-down communism, and cast their votes for more traditional candidates, the left opens the door for new voters who will cast their lot with the left.

In 1969, the Democratic far left, led by Sen. Jennings Randolph [D-WV] introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution to lower the voting age to 18. The far left knew the only way they were going to end "Nixon's" war in Vietnam was to elect an antiwar President in 1972 and increase the number of doves in the House and Senate. Most members of Congress felt the Vietnam issue could be solved with a law that could later be repealed. So, the leadership pushed the Voting Rights Act of 1970 through Congress. President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law on June 22. Oregon challenged the law in Oregon v Mitchell. The US Supreme Court declared the law to be unconstitutional.

To get the voters they needed to defeat Nixon and the hawks in Congress in 1972, the left pushed through a resolution to create the 16th Amendment in 1971. The legislation would lower the voting age to 18. The 26th Amendment flew through the State legislatures faster than any other amendment to the Costitution and was certified as ratified on July 7, 1971.

In 1972 antiwar liberal Sen. George McGovern [D-SD] tried to unseat Nixon. While the far left gained seats in both the House and Senate, America wisely rejected the Democrats' far left antiwar candidate for the White House. Nixon took 49 states and 520 electoral votes. McGovern won Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. New voters—draft-age 18 and 19 year olds—put enough far left socialists into Congress that the Paper Warriors of Pennsylvania Avenue lost a war America's soldiers could have won in 90 days without their inference.

In 1996, 1998, and 2000 Bill Clinton, through the National Voters Act of 1993 (also known as the Moter Voter Act ), fast-tracked Hispanic immigrants. Many of them who were illegals who were granted amnesty. Clinton created over 5 million new voters in each election cylce. In 2004, George Soros and ACORN entered the fray and influenced the vote by using the Motor Voter Law to register hundreds of millions of illegals, minor students and ex-convicts whose voting rights were taken from them and, when more voters were needed, paid unscrupulous "voters" to register several times in different voting precincts. In 2006, the far left used ACORN to win control of both Houses of Congress.

In June, 2008, CBS and the New York Post reported that ACORN's Project Vote was recruiting "frequent flyer" voters in Ohio. Over 35,000 fraudulent voter registrations were found, causing the Republican Party to request that all new Motor Voter-absentee ballots be pulled for physical inspection. The court denied their request. In Pennsylvania, 50,663 were flagged by the computer. Over 600 ballots were found to have been filled out by minor children below voting age; 35,888 were duplications; 2,101 had missing signatures, 5,093 had non-existent address and 6,161 were submitted by people legally ineligible to vote. ACORN worked all 12 battleground States, and rampant fraud was reported and ignored by the media and by State election officials.

Obama intends to protect his economic equality agenda but setting about 15 million illegals on the path to citizenship (even though between 3 to 5 million of them are already registered voters who voted in 2006 and in 2008.). The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 failed in to clear the 110th Congress thanks to Senate Republicans. it's back. It's a sure bet that Obama, reading the history of Franklin D. Roosevelt will note that FDR gave the AFL-CIO everything they wanted and they loyally re-elected him three times.

Obama will deliver the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 to the union. The legislation, of course, does everything except give the employee a free choice. The bill requires the employee to sign or reject a union pledge card in front of the union organizers, opening the employee to harassment, intimidation, or threats of physical violence. The legislation will mandate that if the union can secure signed cards from 50% of the company's employees, the company will be construed to be unionized, and the union will be act as the agents of the employees. When Obama delivers on that promise to the unions, he will be in the "unionized drivers' seat of the nation."

All Obama needs is the right to seek four terms in the White House to become a mirror image of the 32nd President. Oh, wait a minute. On Jan. 6, 2009 Congressman Jose Serrano [D-NY] introduced House Joint Resolution 5 to repeal the 22nd Amendment. The resolution, which currently has no co-sponsors, has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee headed by John Conyers [D-MI].

All I can say at that Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. Obamavelt will give us the Raw Deal. It almost makes me glad I'm pushing 90. Now, I said—almost!

 

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.