<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Roosevelt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/roosevelt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Case for Peace in Our Time</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-case-for-peace-in-our-time</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 04:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lloyd Billingsley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angelo M. Codevilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cold War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[To Make and Keep Peace Among Ourselves and with All Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WWII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But will the American ruling class give peace a chance?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/51lKW4N7eLL.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235475" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/51lKW4N7eLL-233x350.jpg" alt="51lKW4N7eLL" width="179" height="269" /></a>Angelo M. Codevilla, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ourselves-Nations-Hoover-Institution-Publication/dp/0817917144"><i>To Make and Keep Peace Among Ourselves and with All Nations, </i></a>Hoover Institution Press, 2014, 209 pages, $24.95.</strong></p>
<p>The title derives from Abraham Lincoln, a noble proclamation that Angelo Codevilla finds for the most part unfulfilled. As the author notes, during the past 100 years in America peace prevailed in only two brief periods, from 1919-1941 and 1992-2001. As Codevilla sees it, peace is not only in short supply but positively endangered. Given the dynamics in play, outlined here in considerable detail, that should come as no surprise.</p>
<p>As the “precondition for enjoying the good things of life,” peace must be statecraft’s objective. The author charts Pericles and the war-weary Athenians, the Romans, and other lessons from history that will be of interest to scholars and statesmen alike. But <i>To Make and Keep Peace</i> speaks to all and deserves the broadest possible readership.</p>
<p>Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, is well aware that peace has enemies, among them pacifism and the type of progressive ideology dating from Woodrow Wilson. That progressivism “has become orthodoxy” and features “a pacifism as mindless as it was frenetic and provocative,” deployed by a “united ruling class intoxicated with its own virtue and ideology.”</p>
<p>The author cites president Franklin Roosevelt’s Sept 3, 1939 speech, which came after the Munich Pact, after the Stalin-Hitler Pact, after the invasion of Poland, and after the outbreak of WWII. Yet, the villain remained impersonal, “force itself,” and no nation threatened America any more than any other. Only on December 29, 1940, after fall of France, did FDR specifically indict “the Nazi masters of Germany.” But the willful blindness did not end there.</p>
<p>For Codevilla, “no illusions were greater nor proved more fateful than those about the Soviet Union.”  Affection for the Soviet Union and Communism “deformed US foreign policy, caused WWII to end not in peace but in Cold War, and occasioned conflict among Americans the consequences of which are with us yet.” The ruling class blend of gentry and intellectuals “believed that Stalin was the <i>sine qua non</i> of perpetual peace through the United Nations,” and that “staying on his good side was job #1.”</p>
<p>The Rooseveltians “debased America’s cause by identifying it with Stalin’s.” They treated the USSR’s partnership in starting the war as a non-event and  “by using the totalitarian tactic of airbrushing to try justifying their Soviet affections, they poisoned American political life.” The ruling-class consensus was, in effect, to facilitate the Soviet Union’s hold on their empire. In that climate, Americans of the “we win, they lose” view of the Cold War, in the style of Ronald Reagan, came to be regarded as enemies of peace. Codevilla marshals evidence that Senator Edward Kennedy offered to cooperate with the Soviets to defeat such Americans.</p>
<p>By then the ruling class, “had doubled down on its Wilsonian sense of intellectual-moral entitlement” and “came to regard its domestic political opponents as perhaps the principle set of persons whose backward ways must be guarded against and reformed.” Therefore, the author says, a loss of peace abroad feeds domestic strife and results in a loss of peace at home.</p>
<p>Other Wilsonians, “were anti-anti-Communists,” who wanted America engaged in the Cold War, “but on the other side.” This “New Left thinking” eventually spread throughout America’s foreign policy establishment.</p>
<p>President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed that there was no victory in Vietnam for anybody. The strategy was socio-economic “nation building” and the enemies were poverty, ignorance, and disease. The Communists “learned that US manpower does not matter so long as Americans fight without a serious plan for defeating or destroying the enemy.” That, says Codevilla, remains the US government’s default approach and “generates contempt and violence against America.”</p>
<p>These dynamics are also in play in America’s conflict with Islamic civilization, which “had been the West’s biggest problem from eighth century until 1683” when Poland’s king Jan Sobieski turned back the Muslims at the gates of Vienna. “Now the problem is back,” explains Codevilla, and “our culturally, historically illiterate ruling class missed the fact that a whole civilization mobilized against America.”</p>
<p>The seizure of the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979 was an act of war but drew the response of a “minor irritation.” The Islamic world “learned that it was now safe to export its warfare to the West in general and America in particular.” Codevilla finds it no coincidence that “former anti-anti-Communists were now anti-anti-Muslim.” And as during the Cold War, the “progressives” blamed America’s troubles on their fellow citizens. President Barack Obama embodies that dynamic like no other, along with historical illiteracy.</p>
<p>The president is on record that “Islam has always been a part of America’s history,” which Codevilla describes as “the reverse of the truth.” And with the president, staying on the good side of Islamic militants appears to be job one. At the UN, Codevilla notes, Obama condemned in equal terms Americans who insult Muslims and Muslims who burn and kill Americans. And he called for imprisonment of the man who made the anti-Muslim video that Muslim leaders saw “as good cause for anti-American violence.”</p>
<p>Codevilla is right about that but could have explored this theme further. The President of the United States and the Secretary of State essentially parroted the propaganda of jihadists. It is as though in 1961 President John F. Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk had agreed with East German Communist bosses that the Berlin Wall was indeed the “Antifascist Protection Rampart” and offered to help keep Germans imprisoned in a Stalinist state.</p>
<p>The menace abroad, meanwhile, is not terrorism but “extremism” and homeland security is directed against “all citizens equally rather than against plausible enemies.” This fateful error, says Codevilla, “gave civil strife’s deadly spiral its first deadly turn.” And for the ruling class, extremism is embodied in their political opponents, “the conservative side of American life.”</p>
<p>As the author shows, “The FBI infiltrates the Tea Party as it once did the Communist Party – agent of the Soviet Union that it was.” President Obama called “enemies of democracy” the very groups the IRS subjected to punitive audits. Vice President Biden and the Senate majority leader called them “terrorists.” Readers will easily verify that those in charge use every opportunity “to direct blame, distrust, and even mayhem onto those they like the least.” In these conditions Americans “must learn to trust each other less than ever, while trusting the authorities ever more, forever.” Or will it be forever?</p>
<p>“Peace among ourselves and with all nations has to be won and preserved as it ever has been here and elsewhere,” contends the author. Codevilla hopes for new statesmen who will secure the respect of other nations and understand that wars are to be “avoided or won quickly.” Those responsible for terrorism should be held responsible, but “the longer we wait, the more force will be needed.” Since nuclear weapons are easily obtained, Codevilla argues, we need the best missile defense. We won’t get that from the man now running the show.</p>
<p>In 2012, Codevilla notes, “President Barack Obama communicated to Russia confidentially that, after his expected reelection, he would forswear missile defenses more thoroughly than before, previous commitments notwithstanding.” The president came through on that one, but it did not make for peace among ourselves or with all nations.</p>
<p>Terrorists and tyrants are getting the message that the time to act is now. The “domestic state of siege” is unlikely to lighten up along with attacks on those “on the conservative side.”  So it’s probably true that, as Angelo Codevilla says in the early going, “We cannot know whether America can ever live in peace again, what kind of peace we may win for ourselves, or what peace we may end up having to endure.”</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/the-case-for-peace-in-our-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stalin’s Secret Agents</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/stalins-secret-agents/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stalins-secret-agents</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/stalins-secret-agents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 04:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KGB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[M. Stanton Evans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stalin’s Secret Agents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=189385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Communist subversion of Roosevelt’s administration.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/st.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-189387" alt="st" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/st.jpg" width="260" height="393" /></a>Try a word association quiz with the phrase “Cold War,” and the first two responses that are almost certain to come to the mind of the general public are “paranoia” and “McCarthyism,” which is practically a synonym for paranoia. The common assumption, thanks to decades of public school indoctrination and the influence of leftist intellectuals, is that the Cold War, at least in its early decades, was all about suspicious Republicans fearing a Red under every bed and blacklisting innocents in Hollywood. But a recent book (the paperback edition hits bookshelves next month), lays out the historical evidence for massive Communist penetration of our government beginning in the New Deal era, increasingly rapidly during World War II, and afterward leading to gaping breaches of national security and the betrayal of free-world interests.</p>
<p>Contrary to the notion that domestic Communists were simply harmless, misguided idealists, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Secret-Agents-Subversion-Roosevelts/dp/143914768X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1363213982&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Stalin%E2%80%99s+Secret+Agents"><i>Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government</i></a> by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein shows that widespread government infiltration by Soviet spies sabotaged our foreign policy and molded the post-WWII world in favor of the Soviet Union. Evans, the author of eight previous books including the controversial revised look at Joseph McCarthy called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068/ref=pd_cp_b_0"><i>Blacklisted by History</i></a>, is a former editor of the <i>Indianapolis News</i>, a <i>Los Angeles Times</i> columnist, and a commentator for the Voice of America. Romerstein is a leading Cold War expert, formerly head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the U.S. Information Agency from 1983 until 1989, who has served on the staff of several congressional committees including the House Intelligence Committee.</p>
<p>The early Cold War spying which resulted in the theft of our atomic secrets, radar, jet propulsion, and other military systems was serious enough, but that wasn’t the major issue. “The spying,” as the authors put it, “was handmaiden to the policy interest,” which was by far the leading problem. As President Franklin Roosevelt’s health and mental ability waned, covert Communist aides exerted pro-Soviet influence on U.S. policy, which was reflected in postwar discussions by the Big Three powers about the new shape of the world. The policy impact of such deceptive influence on the part of Soviet agents</p>
<blockquote><p>was to turn Western influence and support against the anti-Communist forces and in favor of their Red opponents, as U.S. and other Allied leaders based decisions on false intelligence from pro-Soviet agents. The effects were calamitous for the cause of freedom, as numerous countries were thus delivered into the hands of Stalin and his minions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The three leaders – FDR, Churchill, and Stalin – “would ultimately decide what political forces would prevail where and the forms of government to be installed in formerly captive nations, including those in alignment with the victors.” Unfortunately, at that time “seeking Soviet ‘friendship’ and giving Moscow ‘every assistance’ summed up American policy [in meetings] at Teheran and Yalta, and for some while before those meetings.”</p>
<p>Three notable examples of countries “pulled into the vortex of Communist power” were Yugoslavia, Poland and China. Other nations in central Europe were absorbed into the Soviet empire as well, as prelude to the Cold War struggle. Similar results occurred in Asia, where millions were slaughtered in China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos where Communists came to power. “Red police states would in due course extend from the Baltic to the Pacific, and later to Africa and Latin America… The supposedly progressive twentieth century thus became a saturnalia of tyranny and violence, surpassing in this respect also all previous records of such horrors.”</p>
<p>The most powerful pro-Red influence was actually the President himself. He distanced himself from Churchill’s warier stance about Russian imperialism, and instead made common cause with Stalin. “His main object was to get Stalin to agree with the Rooseveltian vision of a peaceable kingdom to come via the United Nations.” FDR seemed to be “guided very heavily by his advisers and took no step independently,” as one observer noted. Harry Hopkins, FDR’s longtime and most powerful adviser, “held pro-Soviet views of the most fervent nature.” Indeed, the authors claim, “Throughout the war years, Moscow had no better official U.S. friend than Hopkins.” FDR’s wife too advocated in a pro-Red direction, and Vice President Henry Wallace was “arguably the most prominent pro-Soviet political figure of his time.”</p>
<p>But entities outside the government affected American foreign policy in these years too. The press corps, academics, lobbyists, and think tanks all helped mold a climate of opinion that paved the way for pro-Red policymakers in federal office. Media spokesmen then helped promote pro-Soviet policy “while attacking the views and reputations of people who wanted to move in other directions.” A complicit media helping to advance the Communist agenda while shutting down opposition voices – sound familiar?</p>
<p>The most famous example of infiltration was, of course, the spy Alger Hiss, whose “skill in positioning himself at the vectors of diplomatic information indicates the degree to which Soviet undercover agents were able to penetrate the U.S. government in crucial places, up to the highest policy-making levels.” Hiss rose from obscurity to become the custodian of all memoranda for the President on topics to be considered at the crucial Yalta summit. However, “he wasn’t an isolated instance, but only one such agent out of many.”</p>
<p>The authors’ conclusions are threefold: 1) Communist penetration in the American government in the WWII-era and early Cold War was deep and extensive, involving many hundreds of suspects; 2) the infiltrators wielded important leverage on U.S. foreign policy in that period; and 3) pro-Soviet penetration and the resulting policy damage occurred because Soviet agents preyed on the credulity of officials who were willfully ignorant of Communist methods. “The net effect of these converging factors was a series of free-world retreats” in the face of Marxist conquests across Europe, Indochina, Latin American states, and African nations.</p>
<p>The lessons of this highly readable and concise history are well worth taking to heart today, not merely as an historical study, but as a reflection of the subversive infiltration and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on our current administration.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/stalins-secret-agents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We&#8217;ll Keep the Red Flag Flying Here</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/well-keep-the-red-flag-flying-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=well-keep-the-red-flag-flying-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/well-keep-the-red-flag-flying-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stalin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=172676</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Socialists sell false hope in a red music box.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/well-keep-the-red-flag-flying-here/red-flag/" rel="attachment wp-att-172744"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-172744" title="red flag" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/red-flag-450x337.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="202" /></a>Ever since FDR made it his campaign song in 1932 while running for office during the Great Depression, the unofficial anthem of the Democratic Party has been that Tin Pan Alley classic, &#8220;Happy Days are Here Again.&#8221;</p>
<p>Like Hope and Change, Happy Days are Here Again was a blandly optimistic and non-specific promise that good times were coming. Someday the happy days would arrive, an appropriate enough sentiment for a song whose pivotal moment came in the movie &#8220;Chasing Rainbows&#8221; where it was sung to reassure a cuckolded husband who is threatening to kill himself. And in an even more appropriate bit of symbolism, the actual movie footage of that moment is as lost as the happy times.</p>
<p>No matter how often the Democratic Party cheats on the American people, it can always break out a new rendition of &#8220;Happy Days are Here Again&#8221; to win them back. And even if the happy days never seem to actually arrive, the promise of &#8220;So long sad times&#8221; and &#8220;Howdy gay times&#8221; where &#8220;your troubles and cares are gone&#8221; is always a winner.</p>
<p>While the American Democratic Party may not have an official anthem, the British Labour Party does and its anthem, &#8220;The Red Flag&#8221; would be entirely appropriate for the new Democratic Party that no longer has anything in common with Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson.</p>
<p>It might be awkward to imagine Harry Reid or Joe Manchin trying to make it through verses like, &#8220;The people&#8217;s flag is deepest red&#8221; and the sonorous chorus, &#8220;Then raise the scarlet standard high /Within its shade we live and die/Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer/We&#8217;ll keep the red flag flying here.&#8221; But you could easily imagine Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett belting it out. And that would be only right because The Red Flag mentions two cities. &#8220;In Moscow&#8217;s vaults its hymns were sung/Chicago swells the surging throng.&#8221;</p>
<p>These days red flag songs, once mandatory, are confined to all sorts of vaults in Moscow. The new Russian anthem is Putin&#8217;s redress of the old Soviet one, with lyrics by the same composer. And the Soviet National Anthem, that secular hymn, has a familiar pedigree going back to the Anthem of the Bolshevik Party in 1938, which took its melody from &#8220;Life is better, Life is fun.&#8221;</p>
<p>You might be forgiven for thinking that the Bolshevik Party had borrowed its melody from some Moscow musical, but that wasn&#8217;t the case. &#8220;Life is better, Life is fun&#8221; was based on a statement by Stalin: &#8220;Life has become better, comrades. Life has become more fun.&#8221; The year was 1935 and while it is impossible to know whether Comrade Stalin had decided to crib from the Democratic campaign of 1932, the theme was the same. Happy days were here again.</p>
<p>And just to remind everyone that happy days really were here again, Stalin began another round of brutal purges. After the purges were wrapped up, Stalin signed a pact with another red flag waver from Berlin. The Nazis and Communists might have disagreed on any number of things, but both of them had inherited the Jacobin fetish for painting a flag red with blood and then waving it while calling for more death.</p>
<p>While Moscow might have turned in its red card, Chicago&#8217;s &#8220;surging throng&#8221; is still swelling the polls, and even though their shirts are purple, their fingers are red from the strain of repeat voting. If there is anywhere in the United States that the red flag has gone on flying, it&#8217;s Chicago. In its shade, generations have lived and died, and now generations have begun living and dying in its shade across the country as the red flag keeps flying for another four years over D.C.</p>
<p>The red flags of the post-modern, post-American, post-British, post-everything revolutionaries aren&#8217;t usually as obvious as a gang of wealthy politicians staggering to a microphone once a year and belting out, &#8220;We&#8217;ll keep the red flag flying here.&#8221; It usually sounds more like the parody of that anthem, known somewhat sarcastically as the &#8220;Battle Hymn of the New Socialist Party.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;White collar workers stand and cheer/The Labour government is here/We’ll change the country bit by bit/So nobody will notice it.&#8221; A policy of changing the country bit by bit so none of the workers who want their benefits notices that everything else they value is being dragged away to the rubbish heap while they sleep may be sneered at by the real reds, but it&#8217;s worked quite effectively.</p>
<p>Tony Blair did a masterful job of changing Britain, leaving behind Neil Kinnock&#8217;s threats to take the workers into the streets if the election did not go his way. (It did not. He did not.) A New Labour that would talk like technocrats while importing unprecedented number of immigrants to change the electoral balance of the country, so that the red flag would go on flying here, even if it was green and had a crescent and a pair of crossed swords in the middle.</p>
<p>Instead of the flying red flag, Tony Blair&#8217;s New Labour used Dream&#8217;s &#8220;Things can only get better&#8221; as its election anthem, which despite a title that made it sound like another, &#8220;Happy Days are Here&#8221; or &#8220;Life is better, Life is fun&#8221; was more of a love song to a Labour messiah promising to cure &#8220;prejudice and greed.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Walk my path/Wear my shoes/Talk like me/I&#8217;ll be an angel,&#8221; New Labour voters were promised and they fell for it. The age of the Me Generation PM was here and the new egotism resounded in lyrics like &#8220;Things can only get better/Can only get better/Now I&#8217;ve found you/(That means me)&#8221; that took both self-help and self-involvement to a whole new level. But British voters probably should have paid more attention to warning lyrics like, &#8220;I sometimes lose myself in me.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obama marries the red flag radicalism of the old left with next generational egotism to show us the spoiled brat as leader, the tyke born with a set of silver spoons in his mouth who not only waves the red flag, but who mistakes his shamelessness for political genius. To the Hope and Changer, the man is the office, the state is the man, and the whim is the national agenda.</p>
<p>Stalin famously told his mother that he was the new Czar, transmuting collectivist revolution into the egotistical authoritarianism of one man. Obama has managed the same trick, merging revolutionary politics with his own brand until there is no longer a difference between the man and his revolution. FDR only promised happy days, but Obama has become the actual incarnation of hope, which may explain why there is no longer any hope to go around.</p>
<p>There is a flag flying over Washington and it&#8217;s no longer the stars and stripes, but the same red flag that flies over Chicago. It&#8217;s the red flag under whose shade misery and tyranny spreads while the band strikes up the same anthem over and over again. &#8220;Happy days are here again.&#8221; &#8220;Life is better, life is fun.&#8221; &#8220;Things can only get better&#8221; and of course Obama&#8217;s victory speech promise; &#8220;The best is yet to come.&#8221;</p>
<p>It might have been more honest if he had instead admitted, &#8220;We&#8217;ll keep the red flag flying here.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/well-keep-the-red-flag-flying-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Global Epic Fail</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/obamas-global-epic-fail/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-global-epic-fail</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/obamas-global-epic-fail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Herschensohn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=148699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scholar Bruce Herschensohn unmasks the devastating scope of the president's foreign policy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/obamas-global-epic-fail/picture-19-13/" rel="attachment wp-att-148764"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-148764" title="Picture-19" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Picture-19.gif" alt="" width="315" height="268" /></a>In the first presidential debate of the 2012 election, Republican challenger Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama handily in a takedown of the President’s devastating domestic policies. Foreign policy wasn’t addressed, but all Romney need do to brush up for a victory in that arena is study Bruce Herschensohn’s new book.</p>
<p>Herschensohn has a long and distinguished career in political analysis: senior fellow at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, former Distinguished Fellow at the Claremont Institute, Fellow at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom,  and former Fellow at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy Institute of Politics. He has authored such books as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/An-American-Amnesia-Surrenders-ebook/dp/B0043D2CF6/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1349832462&amp;sr=1-2"><em>An American Amnesia<strong>: </strong>How the US Congress Forced the Surrenders of South Vietnam and Cambodia</em></a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Above-Empyrean-Islamic-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B007TK77I2/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1349832462&amp;sr=1-3"><em>Above Empyrean: A Novel of the Final Days of the War on Islamic Terrorism</em></a>, and now <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Globe-Presidents-Abandonment-Allies/dp/082530685X/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1349832462&amp;sr=1-1"><em>Obama’s Globe: A President&#8217;s Abandonment of US Allies Around the World</em></a>, a concise and hard-hitting indictment of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy.</p>
<p>Obama was elected in large part on the promise that he would make the world “like us” again after the supposed “cowboy diplomacy” of the Bush era. Our allies would feel valued again, and our enemies would be pacified. This promise turned out to be as empty as his assurances that he would close America’s racial divide and heal the oceans.</p>
<p>Under previous administrations, Herschensohn reminds us, “people around the world assumed that Presidents of the United States would treat the U.S.A.’s friends as friends and adversaries as adversaries.” The “greatest accomplishment of the Jimmy Carter Presidency,” he writes, “was that he provided forthcoming Presidents with the evidence of what tremendous damage could be done by choosing to abandon the nation’s friends.”</p>
<p>Obama has made our allies long for the days of Carter. The newly-elected Obama immediately began alienating our closest friends, in ways both small and large: returning a bust of Churchill, for example, which had been a gift from Britain symbolizing “our strong transnational relationship”; presenting Prime Minister Gordon Brown with an insulting gift of a boxed set of DVDs that were unplayable in the UK; and, on a grander scale, retracting our support for England’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.</p>
<p>Obama’s disgraceful treatment of another close ally, Israel and its Prime Minister Netanyahu, has earned him FrontPage Magazine’s condemnation as “the Anti-Israel President,” and Herschensohn explains why. Regarding Obama’s unprecedented declaration that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” for example – Herschensohn describes it as “one of the worst, if not the very worst statement made by any U.S. President regarding a friendly nation that won a war.” Herschensohn then details the history behind that Six-Day War, and denounces Obama’s insistence on referring to Israel as an “occupier”: “It is apparent that the use of the word ‘occupation’ has recently been used to describe what <em>friends</em> of the United States do when they win wars, but not what <em>enemies</em> of the United States do when they win wars.”</p>
<p>Speaking of wars: Herschensohn points out Obama’s pathetic strategy for “ending” our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Wars are not ended,” Herschensohn states plainly. “Wars are won or lost. Historically and logically, one side walking away from a war that is being fought frees the path for the other side to win.” The Obama administration refuses even to <em>name</em> the enemy in this global war, much less defeat it. During World War II, by contrast,</p>
<blockquote><p>there was no exit strategy given by President Roosevelt other than one word: Victory. That word meant the absolute and unconditional surrender of the enemies of the United States. No negotiations. No deals. No power-sharing. No acceptance of enemy-led political parties in governmental coalitions in their home countries. No compromises… Nation-building and winning hearts and minds were reserved for a later time after victory was achieved.</p></blockquote>
<p>Herschensohn goes on to criticize Obama for not supporting Iran’s Green Revolutionaries during an uprising that could have meant the end of the theocratic regime there: “It took ten days for President Obama to make strong statements in defense of them. Too late. The protesters had been abandoned.” He points out that our ineffective attempts at “soft diplomacy” with Iran – “the continued preferred course taken by President Obama” – are simply perceived “as weakness and evidence that the U.S. is frightened.”</p>
<p>Herschensohn goes on in the book to identify foreign policy failure after failure under Obama across the globe, from the Czech Republic and Poland, to Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, to Iran and Syria, to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to North Korea and China, even Honduras and Canada, and even <em>above</em> the globe – as Obama reverses Kennedy’s quest for supremacy in space. He finishes with a discussion of how Obama has downgraded our military capability, and what that means for America’s position of world power:</p>
<blockquote><p>We know that every time any great power has given the perception of military reduction, some other power or powers immediately started to fill the vacuum. Always. Not sometimes, but always&#8230;</p>
<p>The U.S. does not need to use the power of every weapon it has, but the U.S. does need to prove that it is <em>willing</em> to use every weapon it has for survival – and mean it.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Obama’s Globe</em> was published prior to the recent Libyan embassy debacle, which takes Bruce Herschensohn’s litany of foreign policy catastrophes on Obama’s watch to exponential new heights – or depths, more properly. Even so, Herschensohn makes an airtight case. At one point he quotes the inaugural words of President John F. Kennedy: “Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Herschensohn’s message is, Obama has let every nation know just the opposite.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/obamas-global-epic-fail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jobs or Snow Jobs? &#8211; by Thomas Sowell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/thomas-sowell/jobs-or-snow-jobs-by-thomas-sowell/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=jobs-or-snow-jobs-by-thomas-sowell</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/thomas-sowell/jobs-or-snow-jobs-by-thomas-sowell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[all sorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creating wealth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private sector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simple fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[someone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time and a half]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=41021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Destroying jobs while creating other jobs does not get you very far -- except politically. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-41023" title="unemployment" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/unemployment.jpg" alt="unemployment" width="576" height="432" /></p>
<p>President Obama keeps talking about the jobs his administration is &#8220;creating&#8221; but there are more people unemployed now than before he took office. How can there be more unemployment after so many jobs have been &#8220;created&#8221;?</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s go back to square one. What does it take to create a job? It takes wealth to pay someone who is hired, not to mention additional wealth to buy the material that person will use.</p>
<p>But government creates no wealth. Ignoring that plain and simple fact enables politicians to claim to be able to do all sorts of miraculous things that they cannot do in fact. Without creating wealth, how can they create jobs? By taking wealth from others, whether by taxation, selling bonds or imposing mandates.</p>
<p>However it is done, transferring wealth is not creating wealth. When government uses transferred wealth to hire people, it is essentially transferring jobs from the private sector, not adding to the net number of jobs in the economy.</p>
<p>If that was all that was involved, it would be a simple verbal fraud, with no gain of jobs and no net loss. In reality, many other things that politicians do reduce the number of jobs.</p>
<p>Politicians who mandate various benefits that employers must provide for workers gain politically by seeming to give people something for nothing. But making workers more expensive means that fewer are likely to be hired.</p>
<p>During an economic recovery, employers can respond to an increased demand for their companies&#8217; products by hiring more workers— creating more jobs— or they can work their existing employees overtime. Since workers have to be paid time-and-a-half for overtime, it might seem as if it would always be cheaper to hire more workers. But that was before politicians began mandating more benefits per worker.</p>
<p>When you get more hours of work from the existing employees, you don&#8217;t need to pay for additional mandates, as you would have to when you get more hours of work by hiring new people. For many employers, that makes it cheaper to pay for overtime. The data show that overtime hours have been increasing in the economy while more people have been laid off.</p>
<p>There is another way of reducing the cost of government-imposed mandates.</p>
<p>That is by hiring temporary workers, to whom the mandates do not apply.</p>
<p>The number of temporary workers hired has increased for the fourth consecutive month, even though there are millions of unemployed people who could be hired for regular jobs, if it were not for the mandates that politicians have imposed.</p>
<p>Economists have long been saying that there is no free lunch, but politicians get elected by seeming to give free lunches, in one form or another. Yet there are no magic wands in Washington to make costs disappear, whether with workers or with medical care. We just pay in a different way, often a more costly way.</p>
<p>Nor can these costs all be simply dumped on &#8220;the rich,&#8221; because there are just not enough of them. Often people who are far from rich pay the biggest price in lost opportunities. A classic example is the minimum wage law.</p>
<p>Minimum wage laws appear to give low-income workers something for nothing— and appearances are what count in politics. Realities can be left to others, so long as appearances get votes.</p>
<p>People with low skills or little experience usually get paid low wages. Passing a minimum wage law does not make them any more valuable. At a higher wage, it can just make them expendable. Raising the minimum wage in the midst of a recession was guaranteed to increase unemployment among the young— and it has.</p>
<p>None of this is peculiar to the current administration. The Roosevelt administration created huge numbers of government jobs during the 1930s— and yet unemployment remained in double digits throughout FDR&#8217;s first two terms.</p>
<p>Constant government experiments with new bright ideas is another common feature of Obama&#8217;s &#8220;change&#8221; and FDR&#8217;s New Deal. The uncertainty that this unpredictable experimentation generates makes employers reluctant to hire. Destroying some jobs while creating other jobs does not get you very far, except politically. But politically is what matters to politicians, even if their policies needlessly prolong a recession or depression.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/thomas-sowell/jobs-or-snow-jobs-by-thomas-sowell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 657/701 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 05:01:50 by W3 Total Cache -->