Ken Burn's - The Roosevelts

Since the post was about a series on the Roosevelts, I assumed you were referring to them. Apparently your rage extends to a wider universe of people. Do continue with your vitriol. As for Europe, I understand you simply could care less about Europe. Yet another fine example of just how broad your universe is which is typical of someone with your mindset. Perhaps I can recommend a compound at Hayden Lake for you. The neighbors share your views.

 

lol.

As I suspected.

You made an invalid claim. And now you cut and run.

Gotta love it when people get trapped by their own words.

 

I work for a living rather than spend all day looking at blogs. If you were referring to other people then claim who they were. I think I read that you wished them dead. Nice.

 

You have quite a vivid imagination. Or you need to adjust your meds. Here are my posts regarding the Roosevelts. All of them. Nowhere do I wish them dead or ill in any way, shape or form. And why would I do that anyway, since they're already dead? Jeez! What drama!!!!!

Now it's up to you to apologize.

 

Sorry, got you mixed up with someone else then. Try to take a breath.

 

Apology accepted.

I'm breathing fine. Laughing my butt off, lol.

 

To Jonsa: Perhaps the enclosed article will change your mind about Eleanor. Reeves does not mention Eleanor’s role in betraying the country to the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt was the face of the United Nations in 1945 and for years after. Much like Jackie Kennedy after JFK was assassinated nobody dared question anything the widow Roosevelt championed. I did not watch the show, but I assume it was not mentioned there either.

September 25, 2014
Ken Burns Makes Room on Rushmore for Eleanor Roosevelt
By Bernie Reeves

“Ambitious” is the obvious description of the recently aired 14-hour documentary on Theodore, Franklin, and, disappointingly, Eleanor Roosevelt. Produced by Ken Burns, the video documentarian whose often tedious productions have dominated public television for over two decades, he delivers an informative, well-designed, and watchable effort, at least for the first five 2-hour parts of the 7-part series on PBS.

The writing and video material displayed were much improved. Geoffrey Ward, not Ken Burns, handled the screenplay, a huge help in conveying the useful information available. Producer Burns avoided the melancholy musical score used in his better-known presentations. The old format for attribution was dropped and the usual political bias was seemingly less severe. Remember the Civil War episodes and the tedious verbal identifications? Or the coverage of the American Indians that depicted all whites as genocidal maniacs? His story of baseball in America was about race, not America’s game. His Mark Twain series made viewers think Samuel Clemens wasn’t funny.

By combining the lives of TR and FDR, the viewer was kept engaged as the drama of their lives coincided with the calamitous history of the first half of the 20th century. That TR’s Republican Oyster Bay branch of the family, and FDR’s Democrat Hudson River Roosevelts are considered American royalty makes for a sure-fire drama. TR charged into life at full speed with verve and undaunted courage, prepared to take on anything that came his way, or launch adventures and challenges he concocted himself. The shrewd and politically wise FDR concealed his innermost feelings and motives, an attribute TR was incapable of achieving. TR led the famous charge on San Juan Hill, and nearly died exploring an uncharted river deep in the Amazon jungle. FDR displayed courage of even superior magnitude when struck down by the cruel onset of polio in his mid-30s, just as his political career was on the uptick.

Rarely did the series disappoint, until it sank under the weight of political ballast. Juxtaposing Teddy’s and Franklin’s lives left viewers unaware that an opening was being craftily concocted to insert another Roosevelt -- Eleanor, FDR’s wife. By the end of the series, she had been elevated to Mt. Rushmore heights for apparently political purposes. In Episode 5, the fix is in. The socialist Eleanor never relents in her hectoring to persuade her husband to follow the usual litany of utopian causes and programs. To his credit, FDR defied her as best he could under withering fire from his virago of a wife.

After that, it’s the Eleanor’s show and her efforts for women’s rights, minority rights, guaranteed annual wages, union rights, and friendship with the Soviet Union. Burns and writer Ward glossed over the 1940 Democratic national convention by implying it was FDR, not Eleanor, who told the delegates he would step down as a candidate if Henry Wallace was turned down as his running mate. Wallace was eventually tapped as VP and sent after the election on peacekeeping missions to the USSR and China. Upon his return, he penned a subversive piece for the New York Times titled “The Dangers of American Fascism," in which he condemned the rising tide of anti-Soviet propaganda, called for One World government in order to eliminate nationalism and, consequently, imperialism.

In 1944, as FDR was nominated for an historical fourth term, the evidence against Wallace’s socialist beliefs (not to mention his weird relationship with a Theosophist guru) had become so overwhelming that he was dropped like a hot potato, with Harry Truman selected in his place. Here was a good time for Burns and Ward to state how fortunate America had been historically to nominate or elect the right person at the right time, including his subjects TR and FDR. Had this not been the case, an international socialist would have become president of the United States when FDR died four months after taking office in 1945. It is believed by historians Wallace would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, and certainly he would have allowed the Soviet Union free rein over the postwar world, even beyond what was handed to Stalin at Yalta. And Eleanor would have achieved her goal of placing a pro-Soviet communist sympathizer in the Oval Office.

The omission of the details of the Wallace issue exemplified the goal of the Roosevelt series to brainwash rather than inform. The derring-do of Teddy and the ferocious bravery of FDR are washed away in an attempt to deify Eleanor and praise her far Leftist political views. In retrospect, the program appears in the rear-view mirror as a greedy act of cannibalism of two great men to plug the Democratic Party and elevate the role of women to pay homage to the politically-correct feminists of our era. Ken Burns hasn’t evolved into a more accurate historian and filmmaker with "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History". He has demonstrated, beyond a doubt, he is a propagandist who disguises his political agenda in celluloid.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/ken_burns_makes_room_on_rushmore_for_eleanor_roosevelt.html

 

I violently disagree with the characterization of Eleanor. She was sent to the convention to tell them FDR would resign if Wallace wasn't his VP. as for her position on communism:

Regardless of the arena in which she operated, ER worked to keep the focus on what democracy represented rather than on how communism threatened it. She thought the nation gained little from spending most of its energy hating the Soviet Union and urged Americans to recognize that making democracy work at home and encouraging democratic movements abroad was often more effective than intemperate foreign policy. "While her opposition to the spread of communism never wavered," ER refused to play political one-upmanship. As diplomatic historian Anna Kasten Nelson concludes, "In her unique position, she tried to persuade her fellow Americans that the Cold War was the result of both the expansionist ideology of the Soviets and the wrong-headed American response to them." (1)

As for the idiotic notion that she betrayed her country to the UN perhaps you can actually back that up with some facts.

her crowning achievement at the UN was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The very antithesis of American values I suppose.

And yes she was a liberal who believed in the Christian message of helping those most in need. By elevating the lowest everyone else rises as well. I realize that is the opposite of conservatives who believe that by elevating the highest the rest will rise, which history has proven is a failed belief.

 

Violently? How violent do you want to get?

 

Exactly. Like I said, a flaming liberal. Nothing of his can be believed simply because of his bias.

Still, it was an interesting docufantasy. I enjoyed it.

- - - Updated - - -

Pssssssssstttttttttttt: The CHRISTIAN message is: The Lord helps those who help themselves.

 

I see what you are saying. No flaming conservatives should be believed simply because of their bias.
Gee thanks for such an insight.

Might want to go back to Sunday school. Seems many a Christian have no clue what Jesus actually preached.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_and_the_poor

Deuterodemy 15:11 ESV / 66 helpful votes

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’




Luke 14:13 ESV / 59 helpful votes

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,




Luke 4:18 ESV / 34 helpful votes

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,




Luke 6:20-26 ESV / 29 helpful votes

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.




Mark 10:21 ESV / 22 helpful votes

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”




Luke 6:20-21 ESV / 15 helpful votes

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.




Proverbs 19:17 ESV / 14 helpful votes

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.




Mark 10:25 ESV / 9 helpful votes

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”


Helpful Not Helpful

Matthew 5:3 ESV / 8 helpful votes

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.



Etc. etc. etc. etc. But feel free to ignore those passages.


- - - Updated - - -

Oh... about this much.

 

To Jonsa: Lack of evidence proving that “She was sent. . .” supports the view that the idea was hers and hers alone.

To Jonsa: Democracy is the problem not the solution. No American should advocate or fight for democracy.

To Jonsa: In short: Appease Communists with cover stories.

To Jonsa: Res ipsa loquitur. All of the rhetoric about the United Nations does not change the fact that supporting the United Nations with tax dollars and policies are acts of treason; more so for people like Eleanor Roosevelt who helped create it. Note that US membership in the UN means that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf can be prosecuted for treason.

To Jonsa: Absolutely. Eleanor’s declaration is the foundation document for the creation of a worldwide parasite class supported by tax dollars. Multiply the harm done by our welfare state a thousandfold and you will have some idea of where the UN is going. Taxes aside, there is not one so-called Right in that parasite document that guarantees individual liberty for everyone.

To Jonsa: Drop the Christian bit. It does not work with me. Eleanor Roosevelt and her kind set up a system of coerced charity which has nothing to do with voluntary Christian charity.

To Jonsa: Class warfare. How original! Or did you get it from Taqiyya the Liar?

The fact is: You do not know what conservatives believe. For future reference. The form of government established by America’s founders gave the world the highest standard of living for the most people. Conservatives believe in individual liberties. That belief has been proved successful. Proof: Individual liberties was the engine responsible for America’s greatness ——not coerced charity or democracy.

The belief in collectivism is the failure that has been proved time after time throughout history. Most recently the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, every generation produces an overabundance of fools who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

 

Read FDR's biography.

Yes, dictatorship is so much better.

paranoia will destroya.

What a rather large pile of cow dung.

I like that "worldwide parasite class supported by tax dollars". Quite amusing, definitely telling and totally distorted.

I have a feeling nothing works with you. I like that "coerced charity" yet another egocentric distortion.

I do find it ironic that the right is so offended by comments about class warfare on the one hand and yet it is an integral part of their platform.
I put those kind of comments in same garbage pail as your deliberate political slur.

You mean the kind of individual liberties to be found in the NDAA? the Patriot Act? If I am not mistaken both were introduced by Jr.s crew.

The role of "individual liberty" in the development of the nation while no doubt extremely significant, has been exaggerated and mythologized.
There has been a equally long and strong history of collectivism in America that for some reason conservatives wish to ignore or simply denigrate.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1950765?uid=3739448&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104752940913

http://www.nhinet.org/stivers16-1.pdf

I agree that collectivism in the form of central control of the economy is a failed idea, and that there is no such thing as a benign totalitarian government.

 

To Jonsa: If it is all the same to you I’ll select my own reading material.

To Jonsa: Limited government is better. That is the opposite of the Socialist/Communist dictatorship Eleanor Roosevelt & Company preached.

To Jonsa: Not when it is justified as it is in the case against Communism.

To Jonsa: The truth will destroy you —— and with a little effort by Americans destroy the United Nations à la:

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1146/text
​

To Jonsa: Logical rather than distorted.

Taqiyya the Liar is the first full blown child of the parasite class to make it all the way to the top. Approximately 40 percent of Americans who do not work for the government now live on tax dollars through welfare state programs of one kind or another. Incrementally, a worldwide parasite class is the logical next step.

Clarification: Parasite is defined by anybody whose majority income is derived from tax dollars. Parasites include government employees who are not necessary to government; “employees” in unnecessary and bloated bureaucracies for example. Hence, there are parasites on every economic level of society. If funded, Eleanor Roosevelt’s Declaration of Human Rights will establish parasite classes in every Third World country.

To Jonsa: Every welfare state program, in addition to foreign aid, is coerced charity. T. J. Could not have envisioned today’s coerced charity funded by a tax on income, but he nailed it anyway:

To Jonsa: Class warfare has been a Democrat party mainstay since their attacks on “robber barons.” The joke is that now Democrat billionaires are tax dollar robber barons. Example: Check out the money Pelosi and Feinstein sent to their family businesses.

To Jonsa: Put my comments wherever it pleases you, or use your filter to block me out.

To Jonsa: Liberty is only exaggerated by people who take it away.

To Jonsa: Voluntary associations like churches, clubs, business enterprises, and so on were the only examples of collectivism in America until Socialists began their long march toward collectivism by government force.

Here’s a bit of collectivism liberals do not like to hear about:

To Jonsa: Yet Eleanor Roosevelt advocated just that and you think her political philosophy is wonderful.

 

To Flanders:

Apparently you aren't the type to read links provided.

I see you like tokenism in congress. Paul has introduced the same bill three times and each time it got placed in the garbage can. Seems congress has done the same with the subject of your support/comments. I'd write them a strongly worded letter if I was you.

Amazing that when confronted by the FACT that a republican administration could be responsible for the NDAA and the Patriot act, you come up with a spurious and kinda nonsensical statement.

Apparently you know squat about American history and even less about Eleanor.

BTW, you live in a representative democracy - which can be described as horizontal collectivism - "the will of the voters" and all.
Of course, certain kinds of conservatives object or reject it only when it doesn't go their way.

 

To Anyone Following This Thread: HR 1146 was first introduced in 1997 —— before the Internet took off. It’s gaining ground. Mike Huckabee recently said:

http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2014/08/huckabee-attacks-un-whining-about​

Five years ago you never heard a possible presidential candidate say things like that on television or in print. Put it in perspective with the ACA. That foul idea was in the hopper for over a century. It won’t take anywhere near that long to do a good thing WITHDRAW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS.

To Anyone Following This Thread: Tell it to these guys:

 

Which is why we actually live in a Constitutional Federal Republic even though it's common to call ours a "democracy".