Today is "President's Day" in the US (a national holiday), so here's a few "Presidential" thoughts:
1) George Washington Farewell address - beware foreign entanglements
"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."
2) FDR - excessive corporate power is Fascism
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
3) Eisenhower - dismantle the military industrial complex
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
4) JFK - “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
This relates to a question I have been mulling over for a few days now. How is it that our military can "legally" be used to keep rich filth rich or make them richer? I know someone other than me like perhaps during the Vietnam War have wondered how anyone has the right to send our military anywhere? I thought it was a "Defensive" organization? Isn't that what it is called to be in our constitution? So than any one who changed that type of rule has done so illegally and it needs to be put back. If this is not the case then it needs to be the case We The People should have direct control of where and how our family members are sent or used. We do not need to send our families to keep filthy rich scum rich. This is a crime!
In Biden's America, what's legality got to do with it? He blew up Nordstream, an act of immense economic and environmental sabotage to our European "allies," yet will not be punished for it. NATO was never defensive. Its whole idea, since WWII, has been to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US military in. Nothing has changed except for the fact that we now have a madman with advanced dementia sitting in the WH.
No one let into the halls of power are not vetted as A grifter and clever linguistic manipulator. They just try and wear the fashion facades of public "service".
I start with the idea that global respect of private property is a national interest, in order that 1. the nation can avail itself of the resources that support its high station among other nation-states and 2. the value of competition and "winning" can be celebrated. Ownership, however it is disposed, depends on its vigorous defense for its credibility. The executive is all but blessed to do what needs must in case of "insurrection", a label that can be applied too freely, even when to neutral observers the actions appear identical to war.
Funny how that term "insurrection" or "subversion" can be used against others who storm the castle walls of power. And yet private property of the Palestinians is ignored or the Iraqi or Syria or any other place the USrAel set their colonialism imperialist sites on stealing.
They, like most peoples, want a land on which they can self-determine their systems of production and distribution, informed by their own traditions rather than foreign dictates. Such a thing fundamentally denies the universal absentee ownership system the West has managed to inflict on almost the entire planet, and now seeks to impress on people's behavior and even their thoughts. Strict bans on such foreign ownership rights would go a long way toward relieving the carcinogenic effects, but I don't think it would stop that totalitarian moment unless that were to implode.
Thing is though the first 3 Presidents you mention weren't exactly trying to protect the "Average American". They were warning their "class". (or in Eisenhower's case the "class" that owned him.)
Each one though is more progressive than the previous.
Then Kennedy tried to turn the USA into an "inclusive" nation that served everyone.
Today is "President's Day" in the US (a national holiday), so here's a few "Presidential" thoughts:
1) George Washington Farewell address - beware foreign entanglements
"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."
2) FDR - excessive corporate power is Fascism
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
3) Eisenhower - dismantle the military industrial complex
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
4) JFK - “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
This relates to a question I have been mulling over for a few days now. How is it that our military can "legally" be used to keep rich filth rich or make them richer? I know someone other than me like perhaps during the Vietnam War have wondered how anyone has the right to send our military anywhere? I thought it was a "Defensive" organization? Isn't that what it is called to be in our constitution? So than any one who changed that type of rule has done so illegally and it needs to be put back. If this is not the case then it needs to be the case We The People should have direct control of where and how our family members are sent or used. We do not need to send our families to keep filthy rich scum rich. This is a crime!
In Biden's America, what's legality got to do with it? He blew up Nordstream, an act of immense economic and environmental sabotage to our European "allies," yet will not be punished for it. NATO was never defensive. Its whole idea, since WWII, has been to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US military in. Nothing has changed except for the fact that we now have a madman with advanced dementia sitting in the WH.
The US Constitution provides the power to declare war solely and exclusively with Congress.
Congress has failed to assert that power and check the President's unilateral and illegal usurpation of that power. Ditto the US Supreme Court.
How do do it when all of congress are in on it?
No one let into the halls of power are not vetted as A grifter and clever linguistic manipulator. They just try and wear the fashion facades of public "service".
I start with the idea that global respect of private property is a national interest, in order that 1. the nation can avail itself of the resources that support its high station among other nation-states and 2. the value of competition and "winning" can be celebrated. Ownership, however it is disposed, depends on its vigorous defense for its credibility. The executive is all but blessed to do what needs must in case of "insurrection", a label that can be applied too freely, even when to neutral observers the actions appear identical to war.
Funny how that term "insurrection" or "subversion" can be used against others who storm the castle walls of power. And yet private property of the Palestinians is ignored or the Iraqi or Syria or any other place the USrAel set their colonialism imperialist sites on stealing.
They, like most peoples, want a land on which they can self-determine their systems of production and distribution, informed by their own traditions rather than foreign dictates. Such a thing fundamentally denies the universal absentee ownership system the West has managed to inflict on almost the entire planet, and now seeks to impress on people's behavior and even their thoughts. Strict bans on such foreign ownership rights would go a long way toward relieving the carcinogenic effects, but I don't think it would stop that totalitarian moment unless that were to implode.
Nice thoughts.
Thing is though the first 3 Presidents you mention weren't exactly trying to protect the "Average American". They were warning their "class". (or in Eisenhower's case the "class" that owned him.)
Each one though is more progressive than the previous.
Then Kennedy tried to turn the USA into an "inclusive" nation that served everyone.
The Oligarchy killed him.
Aaron Good explores that Oligarchy in a 10 part podcast: https://americanexception.com/podcast/
It's A BIG Club & You Ain't In It!
https://youtu.be/Nyvxt1svxso
Wise men but compromised none the less.