It was something of an amazing transition when the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. accepted homosexual marriage transforming itself into Another Church of Abomination. For secularists churches are social conveniences more suitable to supporting political correctness than Godliness following the ways of God given in the Holy Bible. Wall Street and President Obama want homosexual hegemony. Cultural decadence isn't new of course. That's what this blog post is about.
Some elitist Democrat-supporting-economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years it doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now than in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.
National economic growth averaged about 1% the past year as economic growth for the rich increased more. It also increased for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia. I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 that I will reprint before continuing the present essay.
U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments enriching Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. On October 19 The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate at 1.6% for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. And the U.S. rate may be puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.
Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increases. Such right-thinking policy goals are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.
Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?
Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify masses of poor Roman plebeians.
The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage free Federal Reserve sourced money to loan out five times more to people that repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -trillions…
Increasing inflated money supply to the richest who invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws millions of mindless minions to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.
Democrat party politics from the slave era to the present wasn't not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion). The 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents were advanced with death greasing party cadre skids. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started?
F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth and must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy.
W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War II was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A. wouldn't act as guarantor of the peace. Even in the late 1930s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict from starting. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?
With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war). Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.
With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.
Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.
J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton (via Kellogg, Brown and Root) with contracts to build most of the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts with no-bid Halliburton contracts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. Some believe that his father's press Sect. Marlin Fitzwater was that administration's Monica Lewinsky and that a both ways former C.I.A. chief. Vice-President and President ( G.H.W. Bush) was the point source of perversion for the deformation of post-Cold War U.S. political developments taken to extremes by following administrations. I don't know if the G.H.W. Bush perversion story is true, nor if the Florida Marlins as an expansion team that won the World Series following the G.H.W. Bush administration was an honest fluke or one designed by insider martinets as a p.r. obfuscation device.
L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S. bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.
ences more suitable to supporting political correctness rather than Godliness following the ways of God given in the Holy Bible. Wall Street and President Obama want homosexual hegemony. Cultural decadence isn't new of course. That's what this blog post is about.
Some elitist Democrat supporting economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years that doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now then, again, in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.
National economic growth average about 1% the past year though the economic growth for the rich increases. It also increases for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of the corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia.I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 I will reprint before continuing on with the present essay.
U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments to enrich Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. In October 19th The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate with a 1.6% rate for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. The U.S. rate is probably puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.
Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increasing. Such right-thinking policy are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.
Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in the administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?
Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify the masses of poor Roman plebeians.
The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to the ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage that free money to loan out five times more to people that must repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -billions and billions…
Increasing inflated money supply the richest use to invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws minions of mindless followers to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.
Democrat party politics from the slave era where it led to the present has not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion) to the 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents may be advanced with exploitation. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started? F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy?
W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War Ii was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A> wouldn't need to act as guarantor of the peace; even in the late 30s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?
With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war). Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.
With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.
Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.
J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton with contracts to build all the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded then continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S. bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.
Some elitist Democrat-supporting-economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years it doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now than in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.
National economic growth averaged about 1% the past year as economic growth for the rich increased more. It also increased for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia. I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 that I will reprint before continuing the present essay.
U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments enriching Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. On October 19 The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate at 1.6% for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. And the U.S. rate may be puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.
Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increases. Such right-thinking policy goals are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.
Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?
Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify masses of poor Roman plebeians.
The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage free Federal Reserve sourced money to loan out five times more to people that repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -trillions…
Increasing inflated money supply to the richest who invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws millions of mindless minions to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.
Democrat party politics from the slave era to the present wasn't not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion). The 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents were advanced with death greasing party cadre skids. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started?
F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth and must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy.
W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War II was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A. wouldn't act as guarantor of the peace. Even in the late 1930s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict from starting. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?
With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war). Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.
With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.
Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.
J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton (via Kellogg, Brown and Root) with contracts to build most of the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts with no-bid Halliburton contracts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. Some believe that his father's press Sect. Marlin Fitzwater was that administration's Monica Lewinsky and that a both ways former C.I.A. chief. Vice-President and President ( G.H.W. Bush) was the point source of perversion for the deformation of post-Cold War U.S. political developments taken to extremes by following administrations. I don't know if the G.H.W. Bush perversion story is true, nor if the Florida Marlins as an expansion team that won the World Series following the G.H.W. Bush administration was an honest fluke or one designed by insider martinets as a p.r. obfuscation device.
L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S. bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.
ences more suitable to supporting political correctness rather than Godliness following the ways of God given in the Holy Bible. Wall Street and President Obama want homosexual hegemony. Cultural decadence isn't new of course. That's what this blog post is about.
Some elitist Democrat supporting economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years that doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now then, again, in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.
National economic growth average about 1% the past year though the economic growth for the rich increases. It also increases for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of the corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia.I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 I will reprint before continuing on with the present essay.
U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments to enrich Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. In October 19th The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate with a 1.6% rate for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. The U.S. rate is probably puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.
Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increasing. Such right-thinking policy are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.
Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in the administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?
Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify the masses of poor Roman plebeians.
The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to the ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage that free money to loan out five times more to people that must repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -billions and billions…
Increasing inflated money supply the richest use to invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws minions of mindless followers to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.
Democrat party politics from the slave era where it led to the present has not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion) to the 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents may be advanced with exploitation. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started? F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy?
W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War Ii was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A> wouldn't need to act as guarantor of the peace; even in the late 30s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?
With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war). Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.
With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.
Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.
J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton with contracts to build all the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded then continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S. bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.
