It takes a nation to protect the nation
The US Constitution was a monumental effort to craft a definition of a governmental machine, that would guarantee democracy, and also, limit its growth into statism and collectivism. The form of this definition and the path it has since taken, is complicated and diverse. This forum will be used to collect relevant and helpful articles.
Another superlative analysis of how the initial intentions of the Framers for Limited Government, got hijacked by the those that apparently know better than the us.
This was excellent!
So many today view Glenn Beck as the ultimate authority on the dangers we face, and far be it from me to suggest that he is anything less than a dedicated, informative patriot and without his ability to deliver his message in an entertaining manner he would not be so widely viewed. However, I feel that he should follow this gentleman's lead in exposing the dangers unveiled by Roosevelt in addition to his reveals on Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. True, they laid the foundation for Progressivism but their premises were broadly rejected by America at large. Later it was the crisis of the Great Depression that empowered FDR to really enact the collectivist agenda and guarantee the ruin of this nation.
Unlike Obama, FDR had no intention of destroying America, he just wanted to shape it in his own image.
yes Danny, it was from this video that I finally understood your anger against FDR. The erosion of the original intent of the Framers, has been gradual and deadly, only becoming clearly visible with hindsight.
I still must say this about him: That SOB sure as hell knew how to win a war.
There was a plan in the works during the final stage of preparing to invade Japan that few know about: Incendiary Bat Bombs. Excellent plan that became obsolete when we found out the A Bomb would work. The idea was to drop thousands of bats with small incendiary devices attached and their natural instinct would be to migrate into Japanese houses to escape the light, and then the fires would begin. It was tested here in the states and proved reliable. I am glad that it was never enacted.
Being an animal lover one of my greatest complaints about war is the number of animal deaths due to our inability to get along. Horses, dogs, mules, elephants, pigeons, and in this case bats, being sacrificed because of our warring tendencies.
Your recent posting of the brief clip from "On The Waterfront" reminded me of Rod Steiger's role as Napoleon and so I had to watch Waterloo once again after all these years.
I have always enjoyed Christopher Plummer and love the haughtiness he displays so well. There could have been no better choice for The Duke of Wellington, and the most revealing part of the movie was near the end when he stated that he never again wanted to see battle, followed by his solitary ride among the thousands dead and dying men and horses. What a waste.
Were I allowed one fantasy before I leave this world it would be to watch a very small war. Two gladiators, Obama and Assad. Like I have often written, I believe in justice.
Yes, wouldn't it be great if somehow those that lead us into war, could be forced to be personally involved and suffer in it as well? For some people, the true leaders, that would be no problem. Real leaders like Patten and Montgomery had no reluctance of combat themselves.
And do you know the story about Churchill and Operation Overlord (the D-day landings)? Churchill was insisting on going along with the attack party on the day and nobody could stop him. So finally, King George VI said, since he was titular leader of the forces, he would go as well! Faced with the possibility of the king being shot on the beaches of Normandy, Churchill backed down :-)
I have heard of the Churchill Overlord episode, one of the few times that anyone outfoxed him. Hail the King!
Churchill really seemed to regard himself as being invincible. I recall a quote of his, "Bullets are not worth considering. I do not believe the Gods would create so potent a being as myself for so prosaic an ending.”. Just went looking for it to make certain that it was verbatim and ran across a Mark Twain quote that I had never heard before. According to the good Mister Clemens "History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme."
The link goes on to mention Churchill in the Swat Valley of Afghanistan and England's effort to keep Russia from invading that area. Now where have I heard of the Swat Valley in recent years?
Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose :-)
Forever changing; always the same. When will they ever learn?
I think the first time a man picked up a stone it was more than likely to bash someone's skull in rather than to use it as a tool.
The rewriting of the Consitution.
Paul I have added the above link to my wall.
Philip, while I regard the Garden of Eden to be an interesting but fabricated story, its premise would tend to validate your view. While Moses did not choose to tell us how Cain killed Abel it has long been assumed that the weapon of choice was a rock. Living in the Stone Age, skull bashing with a rock is a logical assumption.
Albert Einstein is one of my all time favorite people, and while famed for his research into the realm of physics he was also blessed with an abundance of common sense. One of my favorite quotes from this man is "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"