Why I, An FDR Democrat, Stand With Roger Stone on Trump
19 November 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
The two greatest-ever American Presidents, in the view of most historians including myself, are Abraham Lincoln, who passionately wanted to free the slaves, and who said that whereas capitalists tend to believe that they are superior to their workers, the workers are superior to the capitalists; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said that the “economic royalists” endanger democracy, and that both World Wars resulted from imperialism, all of which must be ended by the United Nations that he designed and that his successor Harry Truman neutered so as to create the world’s first-ever all-encompassing empire. Both of the two greatest Presidents became succeeded by aristocracy-controlled monsters who reversed their major policies. So: the Republican Party after Lincoln and the Democratic Party after Truman have been and are controlled only by America’s very richest.
Here is the briefest expression that Lincoln provided of his ethical-moral priorities, and they reflect the wisdom, profundity, compassion, and analytical brilliance, of one of the greatest national leaders of all time:
https://archive.is/Paq52
“Abraham Lincoln, 1st Annual Message to Congress, 3 December 1861”
https://archive.is/Paq52#selection-7211.0-7219.738
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them.
FDR’s wisdom, profundity, compassion, and analytical brilliance, similarly place him as one of the greatest national leaders of all time, but were so multifarious that I shall here only link to a fair example of his private thoughts about the issue that ultimately loomed the largest in his entire outlook, namely his determination to terminate after WW2 every and all imperialism and to establish a United Nations (he named it as-such) to replace all of it. (Tragically, Truman prevented that, so we have Truman’s world instead of the one that FDR had so painstakingly planned.) Political ‘scientists’ overwhelmingly deny that this is so, because they are hired by entities which support instead of oppose imperialism, but FDR had what is by now empirically well established to have been the correct understanding in political science, just as FDR did in economics and jurisprudence — he was an intellectual titan. (My book AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL documents this.)
Now, I am not saying that Trump in his second term will be in competition with those two giants, but he is displaying admirable courage by challenging America’s historic turn into imperialism that was created by Truman and extended by Truman’s personal hero Eisenhower and almost every U.S. President since (including Trump himself in his first term). (And I do worry about whether Trump’s neoconservatism in the Middle East will continue — as Biden did continue instead of end it.)
When Roger Stone was advocating for President Nixon, I thought ill of both, but subsequently Stone has considerably changed, and in his latest video he presents very effectively himself and Michael Flynn arguing in favor of Trump’s national-security appointments:
“Are We Heading For World War III? General Michael Flynn Joins The StoneZONE with Roger Stone”
Gen. Flynn joins Roger Stone to analyze the decision by the Biden Administration to authorize Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range NATO missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia.
ROGER STONE, NOV 19, 2024
I add to that:
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1858517552646750436
Thomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all U.S. citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state.
However, I don’t trust him to mean it, unless and until he will lead a movement in the U.S. Congress to rush through and to pass first an impeachment of this piece of filth in the White House, and then to remove it from office. Let Kamala Harris in, so that we can find out whether she really is as bad as Biden is — and then impeach her if she tries to do the same thing and charge her with treason if she will try to bring this country to WW3 without a Congressional declaration of war.
PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
At issue is your claim that Lincoln "passionately wanted to free the slaves".
In the Matson case, Illinois law was that anyone who lived in the state for two years was a legal resident and could not be a slave. Lincoln argued that even after two years of living in Illinois, Anthony Bryant's wife and children were still in transit and therefore were still owned by Mr. Matson. Someone who "passionately wanted to free the slaves" would never have tried to illegally enslave a mother and her children. Fortunately for the Bryant family, the court declared them to be free despite Lincoln's best efforts to send them back into slavery. Even more telling is the fact that Lincoln became a slave owner himself and did not free his own slaves. Lincoln sold his three slaves for $1900. Gold was legal tender in 1850 at $20.67 an ounce, so he received 1920.67 ounces of gold. The federal government did not issue paper money, in 1850. An ounce of gold today is $2,669.50 an ounce. That means Lincoln made $5,127,228.57 in today's dollars from selling his three slaves. Perhaps Lincoln, who grew up in a log cabin with a dirt floor, was more passionate about making mone than he was about freedom for black folks.
There is no record of Lincoln criticizing the slave owning Henry Clay, his political hero and mentor. Lincoln effusively praised Clay in the eulogy he gave at Clay's funeral. He apparently had no conflict with the fact that his father in law Robert Todd was a prominent Kentucky slave owner. He appears to have no problem being friends with one of his supporters named John Crenshaw or staying at his house, called the "Old Slave House".
https://www.prweb.com/releases/lincoln-s-ownership-of-slaves-confirmed-in-new-book-by-kevin-orlin-johnson-from-pangaeus-press-851882325.html
The document confirms Lincoln's ownership beyond question, but that fact was never in dispute. "We all know that Lincoln married Mary Todd, the daughter of Robert Todd, Kentucky's largest slaveholder," Johnson says. The law at that time assigned a woman's property to her husband; so when his father-in-law died Lincoln inherited the slaves who were part of her share of the estate.
"He could have emancipated the slaves whom he inherited, as many of his Todd in-laws did," Johnson says, "but he didn't. As you see, he ordered them sold." Lincoln's own cousins refused to accept slaves who came to them in the same way. Mordecai Lincoln's son James Lincoln received a slave from his father-in-law, too, but left Kentucky because the slave "was mortal flish and he never would not sell mortal flish and took him and give him Back to his farther in Law and moved to the Illinois," as a friend of the family wrote to Lincoln's law partner William H. Herndon.
But marrying into the Todds brought Lincoln into daily contact with slaves in Illinois, where slavery was universal, often frankly but often under cover of indenture. Ninian Edwards, Mary Todd's brother-in-law, joined Lincoln in writing up the order to sell. Edwards had also held a cook named Maria, nominally indentured to the family for 45 years ― effectively, for life. He promised to release her when the indenture of her husband, the slave Charles Adams, expired in 1834, but common practice was to sell bondservants just before the indenture expired.
So Edwards sold Maria and Charles to a salt manufacturer in Gallatin County, Illinois. That man sold them to the notorious John Crenshaw, master of the "Old Slave House" outside of Equality, Illinois, where Lincoln stayed during his political campaigns in the area.
Crenshaw was another of Lincoln's friends and political backers whose houses and businesses were staffed exclusively by slaves, one of the few who made their fortunes by selling slaves and breeding children for sale. "Lincoln himself said explicitly that people who don't own slaves are nobody," Johnson says. "As a lawyer, he consistently helped slaveowners reclaim runaway slaves, but he never helped a runaway establish freedom."
It appears that you are a propagandist posing as a historian. Please prove me wrong.
Lincoln defended slavery in the Matson case, arguing that Robert Matson's runaway slaves should be forcibly returned to his Kentucky plantation. When his wife inherited three slaves, Lincoln became their owner and he ordered them sold for $1900. As James Buchanon said in his December 3, 1860 fourth State of the Union letter to Congress, the Constitution does not authorize any part of the federal government to wage war on the states. Waging war on the states is the exact and narrow Constitutional definition of treason. Secession is Constitutional under the 10th Amendment.
When Lincoln came to office the federal budget was about 2% of GDP. That was the natural result of states exercising their reserve powers under Jeffersonian views of the Constitution. That was what powers the states agreed to delegate to the feds in the Constitutional Convention.
Lincoln pionererd suspending the Constitution through citing war time emergencies. His Whig agenda was based on Alexander Hamilton's American Plan. Hamilton is the father of American fascism.
Our current federal government is Lincoln's legacy. It is also FDR's legacy. The New Deal brain trust were big fans on Mussilinni, the man who kept the trains running on time. Our federal government is a fascist oligarchy with a budgent of about 35% of GDP. It's legal basis is McCulloch vs Maryland, which made Hamilton's implied powers lies Supreme Court precedent. 205 years later, it is the legal basis for the Federal Reserve and the alphabet agencies, that great network of corporate whorehouses.
You are idolizing the men who helped creat this fascist monstrosity. You are clearly on the wrong side of history.