Well Alice, I do have at least a "B" plus for one president, but then
you have to read my disclaimer. Disclaimer: I was born into a working
class family and my parents believed that collectivism was the
smartest way to advance the Cause of the working men and women. They
joined the old American Communist Party and were active for some
years, well into WW II. FDR appeared like a bright comet on the
horizon. If my parents had been Church people, they might have
thought FDR was the Second Coming. Roosevelt was a child of wealth,
born with the silver spoon...maybe the entire silver service, in his
mouth, and a dominant mother who "guided" his every move. Despite all
such obstacles, Roosevelt grew to be his own person. He understood
how the System worked because he was a part of that System. But he
had something others of his Class seemed not to possess...a brain.
The ability to stand back and see what was being done to America
because of the greedy unconcern by the Ruling Class. So Roosevelt
fought through some amazing changes for that day and age. The wealthy
Dodos who were his peers never did understand that this heroic man
saved their ratty hides...and their ill gotten wealth. They trashed
him long past his death, and then turned their wrath on one of
America's truly great women, Eleanor Roosevelt.
So yes, Roosevelt did change the American Landscape. But at the same
time he foiled the growing Socialism that had been growing across the
Land.
Taking that into consideration, knowing that Roosevelt was, after all,
part of that Ruling Class, he stepped boldly out in front and actually
Led the Nation. Something we've seldom seen among our so called
cookie cutter leaders.
So that all being said, I give Franklin Roosevelt a "B" Plus on his
Presidential Report Card. In spite of some of his "womanizing" I
might have given him an "A" except for his treatment of some of our
citizens, whom he had locked in interment prisons. Just because of
their parentage. Just because he also fell victim to that very thing
he said was the only thing we have to fear, fear itself.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, it’s a glass half full, glass half empty thing, it seems.
Reading that record, I think it’s pretty good. I note that the list of worst
things, with the exception of his decision not to confront McCarthy, were
all things he attempted, but failed to accomplish. Maybe his initial
reaction to civil rights attempts was not the best, but he obviously became
more enlightened about it, and his actions demonstrated that. As the Cold
War events are laid out in the article, Ike can’t be held wholly responsible
for the escalation. Nikita played his part, too.
And, don’t forget, ti was the 50s, not the 21st century, and as Frank said
in another context, what do they say about hindsight?
So I ask, what would an American president or actually, a leader of any
nation have to do to get a B on his report card, let alone an A?
On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In many ways Eisenhower would rate a "C" on his Presidential Report
Card. And in truth, although he graduated at the top of his class at
West Point, he was a general of modest talents, just lucky enough to
be a general in what was fast becoming a world power. But Ike had
something about him that the average man in the street liked. He had
a stern but kindly face. A grandfather figure who inspired trust. It
makes me grin to think that Ike is remembered best for his warning, as
he left eight years of presiding over our nation. He came through
some ugly days appearing unflappable. I remember clearly seeing Ike
on TV, sitting behind his desk, reading a long statement. When he was
finished reading, he would remove his reading glasses and look
directly into my eyes and talk to me as if I were sitting with my dad.
Below are some interesting accomplishments and failures while Ike was
president.
Carl Jarvis
*****
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
(arguably)
5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.
This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to
Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened
its effectiveness.
4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower
worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of
legislation.
3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.
Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes
and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the
prosperity of the
1950's.
2. He Ended the Korean War.
He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a negotiated
peace and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement
would lead to
dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest
presidential accomplishment.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Kept America at Peace.
Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he was
in office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the
U-2. While more
than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him
clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He
dealt calmly and rationally
with each situation, always finding a solution that avoided war
without diminishing America's prestige.
President Eisenhower's Top 5 Failures
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL FAILURES
(debatedly)
5. He Failed to Improve the Plight of the American Farmer.
The goal of his farm policy was to get government out of agriculture
and strengthen the family farmer. He failed at both.
4. He Failed to Moderate the Republican Party.
This was a personal goal of Eisenhower's. He wanted to reenergize and
modernize the Republican Party, making it less conservative and more
acceptable to
mainstream America. His failure became evident when Republicans
nominated the conservative Barry Goldwater as their presidential
candidate in 1964.
3. He Failed to Provide Leadership in Civil Rights.
One could argue this, and many do. It’s fair to say Eisenhower was not
considered a champion of civil rights at the beginning of his first
term. His response
to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision to abolish segregation in
public schools was less than enthusiastic and he failed at first to
speak out against
racial violence in the South. But he went on to desegregate Washington
DC, send the Army into Little Rock to desegregate Central High School,
and sign
the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Perhaps most importantly, he appointed
liberal judges to the southern federal courts who would be
instrumental in upholding
the civil rights legislation of the 60s. Although he certainly failed
at times to demonstrate leadership on civil rights issues, he grew
more supportive
of civil rights as his presidency progressed.
2. He Failed to Denounce Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Had he publicly condemned McCarthy and his investigations, there would
have been much less damage inflicted on innocent lives and the
country's morale.
But Eisenhower believed that to personally confront McCarthy would
demean the Presidency and give McCarthy exactly what he craved: more
publicity.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 FAILURE AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Failed to Defuse the Cold War.
He certainly tried. And he seemed to be on the verge of success when
the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, visited the U.S.
in 1959 and agreed
to a Paris Peace Conference for the following spring. But then the
Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane, Khrushchev scuttled the peace
conference, and all
hope of deflating the Cold War ended. When Eisenhower left office, the
Cold War was even more threatening than when he embarked upon the
presidency eight
years before.
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Everyone praises Eisenhower for that speech. But he was involved in
deposing
a democratic leader of Iran, and of one in Guatemala. He got us involved
in
Vietnam. I can't even remember all the stuff he did. But then, when he
was
retiring from the Presidency, he saw fit to warn us? Wasn't it a bit
late
since he'd contributed mightily to the military industrial complex about
which he chose to warn us?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:20 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's
Impeachment
as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
What is that deafening sound coming from Washington D.C.? Oh, it's the
loud
sound of silence. Is Bernie Sanders the first US Senator to publicly
declare the coup in Brazil to be exactly that, a coup?
Of course it might have carried more weight if Bernie had sounded the
alarm
when the coup occurred. But that was not going to get any Brownie
Points
for Bernie, who is, after all, still part of the Establishment. Bernie
found that if he were to have any exposure he would need to compromise.
His
big compromise was to stay out of the nation's horrific foreign affairs.
Too bad, he might have come out in better shape if he's been as critical
of
our world messes as he was about those within our borders. But Bernie
was
just about as culpable as any other US Senator, including the former
Senator
Hillary Clinton.
Speaking out is good. But speaking out when it might do some good is
even
better. And, like that profound warning by outgoing president
Eisenhower,
calling on us to watch out for the Industrial/Military Complex, Bernie's
declaration of a coup in Brazil comes as a weak, ineffectual after glow.
But don't blame old Bernie, or Ike, or even Barak Obama, the master
compromiser. They are/were all rendered impotent by the Ruling Class.
How many great causes have faded from view through compromising their
basic
values?
Although it will make not one speck of difference, this is why I refuse
to
"unite" with the Democratic Party and vote for Hillary Clinton.
Promises
aside, she is totally owned by the Ruling Class.
And so is Donald Trump. He just hasn't figured it out yet. Claiming to
be
a Billionaire, he thinks he is "one of the elite". But Donald Trump
will
roll over, even if he is kicking and screaming, and do the bidding of
his
Masters. It is not a case of the lesser of two Evils.
It is a question of, is there anyone out there who can lead us, the
working
class?
Sadly, the horizon appears empty. No Knight in shining armor, no bugles
announcing the arrival of the Cavalry, no crash of thunder and a voice
crying out in the wilderness. We are on our own. Either we learn to
look
out for one another or we will be picked off, one at a time. We must
become
our own Savior if we are to take our place in the Sun.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
president.
Greenwald writes: "Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced
in harsh terms the impeachment of Brazil's democratically elected
Asoffice.'"
the Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month,
Sanders described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his
Senate site, as 'calling on the United States to take a definitive
stand against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
present).
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018. “After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights” and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far right-wing
social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites – virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he was
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at times forciblyTemer!”
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for holding “Fora
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching thenewsmagazine.”
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to Veja,
a
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically electedls-impeachment-as-undemocratic-calls-for-new-elections/https://theintercept.
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing ‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even long
before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces
-brazi
com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces-brazils-impeachment-present).
as-und
emocratic-calls-for-new-elections/
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
ermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers the controversial
impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s suspension and is
now trying to install themselves through 2018. “After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights” and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far right-wing
social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites – virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and the
world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated election
law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São Paulo
prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new media
movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he was
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at times forciblyTemer!”
removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for holding “Fora
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching thenewsmagazine.”
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of free
expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to Veja,
a
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing ‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is timing: why, after
months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did he finally speak
out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that he
rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact that
his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even long
before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of his statements on
Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out in
ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the eyes
of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
