Ready, it does appear to be the eighteenth day of October twenty twenty three,
according to that thing we call a calendar. And guess what this is?
The Ocelli effect. Here on a Wednesday. Now, I have not
been live on Monday because I've been skipping Mondays and Tuesday because quite frankly,
my back got thrown out over the weekend trying to raise money for Dallas.
Actually is what happened there, because I went and worked the flea market and
this and that. Anyway, you guys know, I do that stuff on
the side because I have to. Why because this radio thing doesn't pay that
well. Anyway, Wednesday, all right, middle of the week. Who
do I have with me? Well, before I get to who I have
with me? The topic tonight is going to be interesting, and it is
from a perspective that you know what you guys will be accustomed to, but
some of you maybe not. The figure of Franklin delanor Roosevelt, right,
FDR interesting figure for a lot of reasons in history. Now I have pointed
too many of the negative aspects of this individual. He is seen as a
hero by certain corridors of power, by certain political orientations in America, that's
for sure, and definitely a dynamic figure, right, battling his own problems,
et cetera, et cetera. Of course, the gee, what is
the direct relation to Teddy Roosevelt? Well, yeah, there's that. I
mean a lot of things going on with FDR. And what did he have
to deal with besides Joseph Kennedy? Oh wait, did I bring that up
too soon? Probably? Anyway, David Beato's with me. And now,
the last time that I discussed a book that he authored, it was TRM.
Howard, which is funny because there's a Roosevelt connection there, just my
name and the TRM Howard book. I brought this up to somebody recently actually
regarding the lack of diversity and coverage when it comes to civil rights leaders,
and I said to myself, well, yeah, I don't see any mention
of this guy in your collective work. And he is definitely a different factor,
you know, a guy who gets into business and this and that.
Now we're not focusing on TRM. Howard tonight. Although if you guys check
it out and you go back in the archives and you find that one and
you want to discuss that, I'm sure that Professor Bato and possibly. I
mean, I'd love to talk to others about this, but I know that
he'd be more than willing to come back on and talk about that. But
tonight it's not about that. The title of this book that we're going to
discuss is The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights. Now, like
I said, it's interesting to me because even though it doesn't go into this
in the book, FDR, Well, how about the gold seizure? How
about the concentration camps. I wonder if anybody's going to go into that.
Uh well, I already I already know the answer. I've read part of
the book, so I did get to this. And by the way,
it's in the subtitle, so you know, all I have to do is
look at the cover if you go look it up. And by the way,
to spell the professor's name, just so you know, it's David T
and then Beto. And I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly, but
b E I t O that is the correct way to spell it. In
case you want to go search the New Deals War on the Bill of Rights.
And yeah, the untold story of FDR's concentration Camps censorship and mass surveillance.
Oh, we had mass surveillance before the Patriot Act. Indeed we did,
and indeed we did before FDR. But anyway, Uh, Professor Beto,
how are you? I know that? Uh, let's see, I
do believe you have retired. You've written some articles recently. I don't know
what else you it is you want to mention here, but University of Alabama
professor, as as your wife also, you know, and I actually had
both of you on the show. I think I'm the only person that brought
both of you on the show at the same time on a podcast. But
anyways, how are you doing tonight, sir? Oh, We're doing great.
And we had a lot of fun that on that show because we've got
a lot of time to just talk about free ranging conversations. That's what I
try to do to give people an idea. Now again, I love the
fact that, look, first of all, this is a bit of a
challenge to history. A lot of people get uncomfortable when discussing FDR. It's
like taboo to go into his well violations on people's rights. The first thing
people bring up, of course, is the the internment camps. Let's let's
you know, use that term, right, tournament camps, you know,
for Japanese Americans. First they bring it up, but also there were Italians,
there were Germans that were putting the camps, to my understanding, not
as many, not as obviously, but this happened. And yeah, people
don't even want to touch that. And meanwhile, there's more to this story,
isn't there. Oh, there's a lot more to it. There's a
lot more to it on the issue of internment. I call them, well,
I don't call them. It was what FDR called them concentration camps.
He used that terminology as late as well, all the way through nineteen forty
four he was using that terminology. And I'm not arguing here that these are
analogous to death camps, Holocaust death camps, but they are. They do
fit the label, and they're not typical internment camps because yes, you know,
the Italians and the Germans were in turned, but you don't have this
kind of wholesale incarceration basically based simply on ancestry. They were actually putting Japanese
American orphans, people born in orphanages who were Japanese American in these camps.
So you didn't have anything like that with Germans and Italians. And I think
there's a willingness of people to condemn, you know, certainly condemn the internment,
but FDR is still let off the hook. There's a lot of effort,
I think, to see him as a more of a reactive figure forced
along by events, by wartime hysteria. And we don't see the Roosevelt of
the New Deal when it comes to interment, which is the Roosevelt with his
hand on the tiller, who's leading the charge on internment. The depiction is
of a kind of clueless figure that's swept along, and that is not an
accurate depiction. A couple of quick questions about that. First of all,
isn't it a pragmatic issue that Italians and Germans were not as easily identifiable by
their ancestry. I mean, isn't that just a reality here, because well,
first of all, Italians, a lot of our names, well I
got a Vallady end of my name, A lot of our names were screwed
up when we came to this country, so we might not be easily identified
as Italians first of all. Secondly, Germans maybe not identified as Germans or
they could be some other people's adjacent to Germany, not necessarily ethnically German.
But I mean it sounds terrible, but it's easier to identify Asian people,
is it not. I mean, just by sight. Isn't that kind of
the argument that's usually used for that one and two about him being this figure
that's swept along. Isn't that partially based on the fact that they make them
sympathetic considering the fact that he was handicapped. Isn't that one of the issues
here too? Yeah, And I'm not taking away from his, uh,
his accomplishments in overcoming those handicaps, you know, and he basically when he
had his bout with polio, was it a kind of a low point of
his career. He'd been discredited to a great extent because of a scandal in
the Navy, and he really he really clawed his way back quite successfully in
doing that. Now, I agree with you that some of this is practicality,
uh, but I think racism really plays a role here. Because the
Japanese Americans are there, there have been a lot of reaction against them that
there were not against Germans and Italians, you know. You know, for
example, basically we had a although they didn't officially call it that, we
had a Japanese Exclusion Act. We had a situation where Japanese could Americans could
not become naturalized citizens. But you know, the only way they could become
citizens is by being born in the US. So you had all these people
that you know, if they're born in Japan and they're brought to the US
at one year, there's no way they can become citizens. They are prohibited
in many cases from purchasing property. So they really set off as a separate
group from from a pretty much from the beginning, dating really from Roosevelt,
Roosevelt's cousins administration Teddy Roosevelt, where this was a big controversy of Japanese immigration.
Well, to see, that's where I was going to go, is
that Asian policy effectively across all of Asia. I think you could find its
roots with his cousins administration exactly, and even previous to that, America not
really a friendly place to well Asian people initially, right, I mean,
they were one of the exploited groups of immigrants that came in, you know,
clearly not exploited to the same degree that African Americans were but uh,
you know, in some ways nearly because again another labor population absolutely exploited and
in order to build infrastructure for the thing of the time, which was the
railroads. I mean, this is very typical of what goes on, you
know. I mean I can tell you about how Look I I'm of Irish
and Italian ancestry. I know that my people got exploited at a certain point.
We were meant to be cheap labor to build a lot of things like
skyscrapers, bridges, stuff like this, and so so I see it as
the the cycle of exploitation that goes on in this country. And yes,
indeed race has something to do with it, doesn't it. Yeah, it
does. I used to teach years ago, who's teached Avada history. I
thought I might get a perm in a position at UNLV. Didn't work out,
but I did teach the course. And you see some interesting wrinkles on
this. For example, Nevada's population I think in eighteen seventy or maybe he's
eighteen eighty was something like twenty percent Chinese, and you would have the Chinese
and the Pioutes, and you know fighting over jobs like you know, bringing
wood in to for fuel for the for the miners, that kind of thing.
They would be really at the bottom of the barrel. So you get
these you know, these white miners sort of betting on I bet on the
Paiute, I bet on the Chinamen, right, and they're fighting each other,
pushing that kind of thing. So it's sort of an interesting comparison there.
I guess you could make to the Irish and the African Americans and their
their rivalry. You know, that's more familiar. I forgot what your question
was basically, but yeah, they were. They were heavily exploited in the
chin Chinese were singled out, and the Japanese were kind of loaded onto that
later. That was that was the point the other immigrant groups we had a
pretty much open borders exactly that that was the point I wanted to make it
we're going to keep them out. Yeah, that was exactly the point I
wanted to make. Actually, that was that was what I was laying out
there, is that, you know, it seems to me like this is
the continuation of and the Japanese just sort of got loaded onto what was initially
very very prevalent uh and directed as Chinese people, and and here we go,
uh I think it has forgotten in our history that at one point,
you know, that racism was pretty extreme. They were thought of as less
than human, et cetera. And that was the reality. Okay, uh
so, you know, and again I'm not trying to excuse FDR or or
Theodore Roosevelt or exclusionary acts or any of that. I'm not excusing anything.
I'm just saying that this was the attitude of the time. And it's weird
because these interesting presidential figures are often presented as sympathetic, right because oh,
well, they're a product of their time, you know. Okay, that's
great and real helpful and everything. But of course they're a product of their
time until they change that time. And look, can I speak to the
position that FDR was innecessarily when we have this circumstance that goes on and also
what happens with Pearl Harbor. A lot of people have many questions about that
still, and our Congress had many questions about it. There were many investigations
into that. People may forget that, but that's the truth. There were
a lot of questions even at the time, what really happened there? What
was the real circumstance that led to the events of Pearl Harbor, etc.
And some people would say, well, look, the backlash of that is
what drove FDR to do what he did. But how would you view that?
Is that the way that works? I mean, is it a response,
well, look, you know, we don't know who's attacking us,
who's working with the enemy. Is this an almost reasonable response, you know?
I mean, how do you view that? Well, FDR been predisposed
in that direction. He was in nineteen thirty six. He actually said that,
well, if we ever have a war with Japan, anyone meeting Japanese
ships or relatives of those meeting them had any connection with Japanese ships should be
put in concentration camps. So there is a nineteen thirty sixties saying this.
Now, I will say this. When Pearl Harbor happened, the initial reaction
on the West Coast even was fairly tolerant. You look at newspapers, like
in Los Angeles and San Francisco, you look at local politicians, and they're
basically saying things like, well, these are Americans, let's leave them malone.
Let's not imitate what happened in World War One. So it's actually kind
of an early attitude of tolerance. Now, what happens is is that FDR
kind of stood back, let others take the initiative who had less, you
know, who were more for the idea of putting them in camps and that
kind of thing, and sort of signed on to it. But he basically
gave them encouragement. He never FDR never gave a speech right in December or
January or February nineteen forty, you know two, saying look, these are
Americans, you know, lay off them. They're patriotic, you know.
He never said anything like that. He never used his incredible charisma. So
the actual order, the executive order he signed that began the process of internment
didn't come about till February nineteen forty two. Once this, these attitudes has
started to build up, in part because FDR sort of gave them encouragement behind
the scenes. But the initial attitude was not, you know, calling for
internment. So there's no reason to see that as an inevitable result of Pearl
Harbor hysteria because even after the hysteria, people are being pretty reasonable about it.
Well, let's rewind a little bit, because let's get into another aspect
that's on the front cover of your book, which is mass surveillance? Right?
If people never heard of this before? What is the Black Inquisition Committee?
Okay, Well, there was a senator from my state, Hugo Black,
later Supreme Court justice. But Black was a career, really started a
national career as a chair of a committee called the it was committee to investigate
lobbying, and it came to be called the Black Committee. Kind of an
an ominous sound, and people critics played up on that and they called it
the Black Inquisition. And basically Black was tasked by FDR. He was FDR's
most loyal supporter in the Senate. Very effective ally of FDR to go and
investigate critics of the administration. And Black was very much on board with this,
and he started to call in these people who were critics of the New
Deal, political opponents. There were some scandals he was able to take advantage
of involving various things any sort of called them in, but they pushed back
and so his investigation was sort of like not very effective. So Black had
the idea, gee, whiz, what if I had access to the private
telegrams of these witnesses and just to give you a sense of how important telegrams
were at the time, that was more than fifty percent of long distance communication.
These are the email of their time. People will often say things in
them they wouldn't say in letters, and they're instantaneous, or they can be
because a lot of businesses have you know, they they are on site,
they have people sending out telegraphs, receiving them, and every member of Congress
is familiar with this mode of communication, law firms, et cetera. So
Black I did, what if I can get access to these telegrams for pet
perhaps because he found out that there was a law that the telegraph companies had
to keep copies of all telegrams and so, uh, you could get them
through subpoena, but it had to be very targeted. I want Joe Smith
from you know, I want his telegrams involving this or that. Right.
Well, Black, you know, wasn't going to do that. So he
went to the administration, went to the FCC basically administration, and said,
look, I want access to these telegrams. I want an order. I
want to get them for like a nine month period for for example, all
telegrams being sent to and sent from all members of Congress. Going out of
Washington. Then he expanded it and he started to include law firms in Chicago
and so forth, the heads of these anti New Deal organizations and so forth.
He said, I want to see all these telegrams, and the telegraph
companies Western Union was the big ones, said screw you because they didn't have
bad reputation, right, But he got them, or they were ordered to
do it by the FCC. Basically, so he went in and he got
these big books, these copies of all these telegrams. He went through thousands
a day, and I had to take a double take. But then I
did the math and it works. He went through about three million private telegrams
and would copy sections considered damning and oh oh, what was the parame of
the search? It was simply look for he told his staffers and the FCC
staffers who helped out, look for anything related to lobbying. What would that
be influencing ideas what we're doing now would be lobbying, right, so it
would be anything. So he said, well, if you see personal information,
just you know, a virtue your eyes and you know, look for
stuff on lobbying. And so then he he he would call in these witnesses,
and they didn't know he was doing this. They were never informed,
and he would blindside them with Well in June eight, if you sent this
and you said this and this telegram, imagine that being done for our private
emails. How many of us would be prepared to defend everything we said in
those emails? Okay, Well, I don't imagine that happened here. Yeah,
see, I don't have to imagine that now. When I take a
look back a matter of fact, the first thing that occurs to me is
to telecommunications acts in ninety six and ninety seven, and then what became of
that later? Okay, because nowadays, look, law enforcement gets involved.
They pretty much have carte blanche through these various other agreements to go through everything
now, which at the time it was like, well, we just need
you to keep track of all these things so we have records in case somebody
does something terrible and then later on what happens, it evolves, So these
things always involved when you have a communication company of any kind involved, you
know, I mean, and this is like on the scale of when I'm
thinking about the parallel of what Jagar Hoover is developing at this very time,
it's rather interesting, isn't it? Because it's interesting, But if you look
at Hoover's phone taps, for example, it's rather minor compared to this in
scale right now, they're certainly significant. But he's got like, oh,
I've seen the figures at any one time, he's got a couple hundred taps
on at any you know, particular time when I'm having Again, I'm not
excusing Hoover. I'm saying a lot of people kind of missed by focusing on
Hoover, have missed some interesting things that are going on. Well, what's
also very better committee, Yes, what's very underappreciated though with Hoover is his
monitoring of the mail. I'm sorry, but that is still really unquantified in
my mind, because people don't even know how much mail was being monitored.
And they said that it was anybody, you know, I mean, it
was so open. This is what it reminds me of the monitoring of the
actual, you know, old postal mail. I know, you know,
what are we even talking about anymore? Because everything is email and so on
and so forth. But honestly, the fact that people were monitoring everything in
the mail at certain points, if you could be a targeted figure back then.
Sounds like the same kind of thing, except yeah, I think that
I think that that's a good comparison. One thing I would say in an
encouraging neelt though, is that once this this process is sort of getting out
of control. And Western Union started to inform people that their telegrams are being
searched, and there was tremendous pushback. The assistant Secretary of War, no
Secretary Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of War, Newton Baker, found out. He's a
moderate kind of character, not a rabble rouser at all. And he said,
when I found that out, if I decided that if I saw lynching
of Hugo Black, I would not participate. However, I would do nothing
to stop the lyncher putting the rope around his neck. And there was a
massive criticism. There were lawsuits, including by a guy that was the head
of the US Chamber of Commerce who found out, and it was a Republican
leader named Silas Strong, very prominent law firm still has that name today in
Chicago, and Strawn brought suit against this for violating basically, you know,
the Bill of Rights, and he won. He won. There were several
lawsuits. But the trouble is Black had done the damaging, gotten everything he
needed, and basically these court rulings said, don't do that anymore. You're
prohibited from doing it anymore, but we're not. We can't really do anything
about what you've already done. Having said that, they were important precedents,
so imagine if Joe McCarthy or subsequent committees that had that power, which could
have included, you know, using monitoring phone calls and things like that too,
because it provided a precedent for that, they were deprived of that.
So it actually ended up in a good way in that sense. Well,
it was pushback against it across the political spectrum, including a lot of New
dealers, were outraged by this. Well, considering that we still don't have
the records of the House on an American activities, you know, records at
all, you know, just saying you don't know, it could be a
whole lot more extensive. There was an extensive investigation and they did massive these
subpoenas basically that we're very fire reaching sure you know just about any information these
people have, and oh yeah, all kinds of people were cited for contempt.
So the House Committee and on American activities. I'm not minimizing that by
any means. That was very you know, investigations out of control, right,
although they didn't have really this power. I think that blackad quite well.
We don't see. I contend that we don't necessarily even know because of
the lack of transparency. But look, we could discuss that another day.
Let's stick to communications, though, because what is FDR well known for,
well, his use of the radio, right, and you know, there's
there's something to be said. I know I'm jumping around a bit through your
book here, but I think this is necessary to bring up because your chapter,
let me get in front of me here a new deal for radio and
a new uniformity. Now, considering that there was a crackdown on dissent and
all of that, I wonder how we would roll that into the use of
the radio for propaganda for you know, the very classic stuff that they used
to play when I was a kid. By the way, a lot of
these documentaries featured long bits of his radio discussions and all these things. I
note that it doesn't seem to be as prominent today. I think it's because
it's highly misunderstood. It's like Hey, look, this should be a podcast
from one hundred years ago almost, but they don't do it. And I'm
wondering why. But there's a bit of control on the media and things that
goes on here. So how would we give people a look at that as
you travel through it in your book? Well, FDR is a master manipulator,
you know. Ironically, in a way, Herbert Hoover was an incredibly
important figure in creating the current structure or the structure is that it developed of
radio through the Federal Radio Commission. But he was rather a naptin use radio
for propaganda purposes. And it was once said that FDR, had he never
been a politician, could have been at the top of his top of the
pyramid or whatever you want to say, as a successful radio commentator. He
had the voice for it. And I sort of forced myself to listen to
all of FDR's recorded speeches. Took a while, and the man was just
a master at doing that. He was very good. He using humor.
He wasn't like Trump, you know, the bull in a china shop.
If FDR is going to get you, he would do it behind the scenes.
He would use he would use so many he was very smooth and very
effective, and put tried to put things on a higher plane when there was
a lot more going on under the surface. But he was a master manipular
of the radio. Now. Initially, when the New Deal came in the
radio networks there were two of them at that point, two main ones.
There was NBC and CBS, and there were a lot of smaller fry and
basically they told they said to the administration, whatever you want, we'll put
you on the air whenever you want. You don't have to pay for it.
They were giving Roosevelt pretty much carte blanche, and we're shutting down any
sort of anti New Deal voices, and that kind of set the pattern.
Roosevelt ended up having a lot of criticism and newspapers, print press was really
against him by nineteen thirty four thirty five, but he always had radio in
his hip pocket. Then later Roosevelt, as there's rise summrising criticism, he's
able to basically force off the air all anti New Deal commentators, at least
all the ones on the major networks. They're smaller regional networks and that kind
of thing. They don't reach as many people. So there's some exceptions there,
but he's able to do it through something very similar to the Twitter files,
basically going in and putting pressure behind the scenes, you know, basically
things like pressure on advertisers. For example, Marjorie Meriweather Post, her husband
was the ambassador of the Soviet Union, Joseph Davies, very tied with the
administration. So Roosevelt went to Post and basically there was a leading anti Roosevelt
commentator, probably the Tucker Carlson was day named both Carter, and they basically
forced him to tone down his criticism and then ultimately force him from the air,
so that by nineteen thirty eight there are no anti New Deal radio commentators
on the major networks, And so Roosevelt has radio under his control very effectively,
using things like early versions of the equal time rule, using things about
prohibiting network codes. Did a lot of work through these voluntary codes, prohibiting
stations from you know, people from purchasing airtime, you know, if you
wanted to purchase airtime, you know, for a political message, that basically
was shut down. So there were all these things done through this sun of
quasi voluntary system, combined with the FCC, combined with behind the scenes pressure
that can't coming together basically created what I call kind of ideological uniformity, but
also kind of uniformity in the way radio looked now. A lot of these
small fry there were socialist stations, labor union stations, these weird religious stations.
A lot of these were through a culling process both into Hoover and Roosevelt,
kind of forced off the air, and you get pretty much radio looking
the same everywhere. Well, what you're saying is that, no matter how
rich I was, if I wanted to go on and do you know one
of these political hit ads like we would see today, right, if you
think FDR's new deal is a good deal for you're you're being fooled. If
that word got out that I was trying to run that, first of all,
CBS, okay, right, the Columbia Broadcasting System and the National Broadcasting
Company NBC, both of them would immediately turn it away because A they didn't
need me, and B they were cooperating fully because they wanted access, right,
they wanted to be able to run the live stuff that he was going
to do directly, seems like to me. And then you have just other
pressures being put on these smaller companies where yeah, they get forced out effectively,
because look, if you keep cutting off their revenue from all these independent
people that could be putting out messages that they don't like for one reason or
another. I mean, and there you go. That leads to a whole
lot of interesting abuse. And again, no internet, no television at the
time. You know, here we are, this is the manipulation of the
media. And and he couldn't control all the print media. Now today,
print media is not as prevalent. Matter of fact, you and I had
a little discussion before airtime about what's happening to print media and even their archives
disappearing at this point, and you can sanitize any of this. Now it's
become, especially in the digital age, it's even easier to do what it
is that was being done here. So this is you know again, is
he a man of his time? Certainly? And he used lots of different
government institutions to do this, right, I mean, we're not just talking
about the regulation of the public airwaves, which has been manipulated by various administrations.
And one other odd thought I was thinking here as I was listening to
you, is that is framework effectively prevails all the way until the nineteen sixties,
because it seems to me like when John F. Kennedy, of course,
it becomes more slick, it becomes more showbiz. When John F.
Kennedy is taking over radio and becoming the first TV president, so to speak,
right, that style that delivery is still kind of there. FDR style
prevails all the way into Kennedy's style when it comes to trying to give these
speeches on the radio. It seems like to me, would you say that
that remained a standard for a very long time up until only maybe I don't
know, a short time ago in our history, even that FDR had set
that standard stylistically one and two. This is an exact mirror of what would
happen today, except that this would be done with the digital processes if somebody
was to use the you know, use the government basically to shut down free
speech, which, by the way, there's many different things here that seem
to be anti free speech among the New Deal press. So what are your
thoughts there, And I'd like you to go into some of the anti free
speech things that go on. Of course, going back further again, I'm
looking at the table contents to guide me a touch here. But going back
toward the beginning of the book, again you have the Minten Committee you might
want to discuss as well. But but this is interesting here where we see
free speech being shut down. And I don't see a lot of historians relating
FDR to shutting down free speech except that, oh, well, you know,
he was a wartime president, so therefore, you know, you have
to control the message during a war, and I dare say it seems like
his his beginnings of doing that are not necessarily steeped in the unfortunate circumstance of
just war. So what do you have to say to that? And what
I was saying before, well, yeah, I think that to some extent
that continues a little. Nobody really equals FDR. A few years ago,
I actually made a comparison though to Trump, where I you know, and
I don't think in the end that's true became over time that ended. But
in a lot of ways, Radio was sort of FDR's version of you know,
Twitter. You know, Trump really rose to prominence through his tweets and
through using that medium, and it was unfiltered. He could go around everybody
else, you know. In FDR's case, he could go around the print
press. He could go directly to the people through his speeches and his fireside
chats, and so I think that that's sort of a unique aspect of this.
Basically, I don't think Kennedy had that kind of hostility with the print
press. So radio is kind of Roosevelt's way just to go around all of
this, all of these people. Yeah, in the strategy definitely Trump like,
because that's that's exactly correct. You see, you don't have to have
a reporter filter what he says. He's puts it out, which is exactly
what Trump did. Uh No. What I meant is the style of speeches
that he was giving are similar to Kennedy still, because that was the template
that worked for the president for a long time, right, these prepared speeches
that came out that had this, you know, this language of a certain
sort that made certain points. You know, I'm here to comfort the nation,
all that kind of stuff. I mean that is sort of would avoid
personality, and I don't remember a lot of these guys avoided personalities. And
I will say that about FDR one of his He's different than Trump in the
sense that FDR would not And I think this would if I would be true,
for Kennedy would not get up there and just sort of like Trump does,
right and attack individuals right, personalize it. Right. FDR is very
effective in talking about these Republicans, these critics, and of course he mischaracterizes
his critics, right, he puts words in their mouth, but he does
it with good humor, and he does it without sort of of specifically singling
them out. So that's a little bit of a difference, I think.
Right, So they're on a higher plane in one sense, they're more abstract
in one sense. Well, Kennedy did it with jokes during the television press
conferences right where he would make a joke about some criticism toward him with the
reporter standing there. Sometimes remember the you know you, I'm sure you viewed
some of the television press pressors he did, right, sure, sure you
know so. And he again the television president. Okay, FDR definitely thought
of as a radio president because he was on all the time the fireside chats.
We all know that. I mean, anybody who knows the history knows
that. When you study communications and you study the history of our political structure,
communicating with the public, obviously you have to take note of it.
But I was wondering more about the control of free speech again, not just
through shutting down opposition to the New Deal. But wasn't there other things going
on here? Well? Yeah, there was a senator named Sherman Minton,
who's now mainly remembered because there's a bridge in Indiana named after him. But
maybe that's changing now with this book. But Minton was really very effective like
Black was. He was younger, but he was a very effective kind of
attack dog. I guess you could say for the New Deal, he was
the guy that really helped out and you know that provided the energy. You
had a kind of elderly senate leadership, and he provided the energy for things
like pushing for the court packing plan and that kind of thing. Very loyal
to FDR. Very you know, not a loose cannon at all. And
Minton proposed a bill, and frankly, I think it came from FDR the
idea. I can't prove that, but I've got some fairly good circumstantial evidence,
I guess you could say, but I haven't nailed it down. He
proposed the bill because Minton was Black's successor. When Black went up to the
Supreme Court, mainly because of his good work for FDR on the Black Committee.
Minton took over his committee and it sort of languished for a while,
and Minton tried to revive this investigation. This was after the defeat of Court
Packing, so FDR was in a revenge revengeful mood, and so Minton was
sort of with him on that. They started to investigate, and again partly
because he didn't have the power to get these telegrams. Minton is sort of
like frustrated because these guys will come in and he's investigated, and they'll go
toe to toe with them and they'll actually get sympathetic coverage. So Minton is
very frustrated, so he decides to propose a bill. He's trying to make
a larger point. He thinks against what he sees is fake news, false
news, right, same thing as today. FDR talked that way too.
He proposes a bill to ban to make it a felony to publish any article
quote known to be false. Uh oh, now that sounds an awful lot
familiar. Tough O pose something like that a few years ago, and it's
talked since in those that kind of have to though, No, he's not
the only one. But he's not the only one. Yeah, yeah,
no, I just but see here we go, you know, the the
the often sighted thing, right, you know, history doesn't repeat itself,
but it does rhyme, Yeah it does. Because we've heard this before,
haven't we again? Shutting down the scent? So uh, please continue,
though, because before we're done, and by the way, we're we're way
more than halfway through already. H I want to get into the last part
of the book, which I did not read thoroughly, but I want to
ask you about it because I'm intrigued by even the uh the the chapter title
here, uh, the in the table of contents. So I want to
get into it before we before we're done. But you know, this is
a different portrait from what is generally handed to school kids. This is a
different portrait than what you usually get in your oh you know, very vanilla
sort of a documentary on FDR. Right, this is not the stuff they
want to tell you about. They may mention the concentration camps, which I
didn't even take a lot of time to focus with you on, but you
know, because I figure that's out there, there's plenty of it, But
there's a whole lot more going on here. So I'm really glad that we've
gotten a chance to do this, but please continue, because again, I
think people don't recognize exactly how extensive the work had to be to shut down
dissent. And even though you know, look, maybe it's descent with the
New Deal, people have judged it differently in recent years than they used to.
Like I said, he was more of a political hero, now sort
of seen as this sort of gray figure just kind of yeah, part of
the past we flipped by any longer it seems like, right. I mean,
he was supposed to be one of the presidential heroes, so to speak.
I remember as I was taught when I was younger, but things have
changed over time, and of course history does revise itself as it goes.
I mean, I see people massaging Lyndon Johnson into a different figure as we
go. And I've got my opinions on that for sure, after having to
study a lot of that stuff extensively. But I think that an honest look
once again at some of these figures in American history is necessary, and I'm
really glad that people like you are going to keep doing this, which,
by the way, says in the beginning of the book that you've been working
on this for about ten years? Is that right? Oh? More than
that. Actually, I hate to admit it because I said, I'm going
to deal a story, and I decided I had to do tons of primary
research. I have to know the secondary literature. I look at all sorts
of aspects of it, and I was about to give up on it.
My wife said, no, you better continue, and I did. But
it was just so overwhelming, and I'm glad I I stuck with it.
You're talking about FDR and his popularity. It's still way up there. If
you look at presidential polls, he's up there. You know, number one,
very often number two. Woodrow Wilson was still fairly up there, but
he's sinking, I think pretty fast, because there has been pushback against him,
well as he deserves to, by the way, being somebody was born
in the state of New Jersey, I feel fully within my right to say
that Woodrow Wilson does not deserve to be in the top of anything in presidential
historians. Although I think FDR, I make an argument that FDR was actually
worse even if you don't include Japanese in tournament worse on civil liberties than Woodrow
Wilson. I know that's a controversial argument, that's right, but I mean,
I think the evidence is there. Woodrow Wilson, you could say,
you know, he appointed a lot of people like oh Palmer and these Gregory
and these other people, you know, smashing civil liberties during World War One,
But he would occasionally he would sort of step in and say, hey,
you know, do you really have to do this? Isn't this going
a little too far? And his subordinate would say, no, I have
to do it, and Wilson would defer to them, so we sort of
let them run wild and didn't do anything. Now, his attitudes weren't that
great in civil liberties, but in some ways they were better than some of
his subordinates. The reverse was true with FDR would he would put pressure on
subordinates who pushed back. And that's one of the things why civil liberties the
story is not as bad as it could have been, only because he had
subordinates who would push back. And that's what you see with the Mitten Committee.
Mitton proposed his bill and guess what, almost universal opposition, including from
leading New dealers, including from the press, including from congressman that you might
remember, like oh, I don't remember a manual seller and some of these
other figures McCormick, these new dealers. They would push back and they say
this is going too far. And that is one thing that you saw during
the era that you do not see now to the same extent. Right left
coalitions for free speech right, well, they don't. Maybe they'll come back,
but you know, things that shake up over Israel and all that.
But I'm not too optimistic. I don't see it as being No, I
don't think so either. We have ways to go before people stop stepping on
the other side of the line to oppose somebody on their side. Nowadays,
it's kind of a free rider problem. I would say, right, you'll
only defend free speech for your side exactly, and the result of that is,
because you won't defend it for others, you weaken the You create a
free rider problem in a sense where people are free riding off of you who
disagree with you, and it sort of weakens the whole opposition to any censorship
or control well right, and to me, it weakens the legitimacy of anybody's
argue when they're in opposition to anything, because it's like, Okay, you're
in opposition to this because this is your opponent. Uh. That that's the
only reason. Otherwise, if it was your guy, it would be fine.
I mean, I know I'm putting it on a very basic level,
but that that is the reality of it. Back at this point in time
in our history. Uh, that was not necessarily the case. Although Woodrow
Wilson, again having speaking speaking as somebody who lived in Woodrow Wilson housing projects
who went to schools with his name on it, Okay, I studied him
as a figure and presented oppositional viewpoints to Woodrow Wilson while living in New Jersey
as a kid. So you know, it's like, hey, look this
guy hired Henchman. Do you understand this? You know, like if Royd
had a nail. Did you ever read Freud's analysis of Wilson? I did
not, but but please enlighten me. Oh yeah, there was a guy
named uh it was a book. It was a book by about Wilson,
and it was the introduction was by guy ambassador to the Soviet Union named Bullet
and who didn't like Wilson either or didn't like Wilson either. And so this
book Freud Psychle analyzes Wilson and basically says, this guy's got a Christ complex.
And I mean he really goes to town. People don't know about the
book, but if you just google it, you know, you just some
wonderful things in it. He has. He has Wilson on the couch,
and he's merciless toward it. I you know what I think, I read
like like references to it in another book, come to think of it,
because in the fact that you just said Christ complex, I remember that coming
up before. Uh yeah, yeah. He would lecture the people at the
Versailles Conference about, you know, our Lord Jesus Christ has laid out this
world. You know this, you know. He would give them these flowery
lectures and people like Clem and So would look at Lloyd and these cynics would
look at Lloyd George and they'd roll their eyes. Right this, this guy's
a babe in the woods here. This guy does not understand the realities.
Yeah, I know, and that and that's that sums up Wilson. But
look again, not the guy we're talking about tonight, necessarily, but in
comparison, no, it's very that's a hard argument. That FDR could be
worse. But all right, anyway, we'll put that aside. That would
make the argument perhaps perhaps, But all right, now here's something I don't
know about. Uh and and you you title it this way, and it's
toward the end before your conclusion, which is the forgotten sedition trial fiasco.
Now, I don't know anything about this off the top of my head.
So uh Now, I know that the sedition is a popular word as of
late. People talk about the you know, the insurrection, the sedition.
People have been charged with sedition in recent years, have they not. It
is one of these things to bring up. But I don't know about this
part of FDR's history. So please give me give me a thumbnail of of
of what's in that after, if you wouldn't mind. Yeah, I didn't
plan this, but you know, sedition is suddenly a thing again, sedition
trials. I didn't see it coming, but boy it came. It did
hit me with a you know, Okay, my timing's pretty good on this.
This was one of the largest, if not I believe, the largest
mass trial in the history of Washington, d C. And it basically started
with this reporter from the Washington Post cooperating with sympathetic prosecutors in the federal government
and certainly the people elements in the Roosevelt administration, including Roosevelt himself, who
basically started to It started small, but after Pearl Harbor it really heated up,
partly because Roosevelt put a lot of pressure on his Attorney general and said,
when are you going to indict these people? Now Roosevelt wanted to indict
people like the publisher of the Chicago Tribune, Robert McCormick. They wanted He
wanted to indict these major medium miles, moguls. He wanted to indict members
of Congress, you know who. What was their sin? Their sin was
that they had opposed his policy before Pearl Harbor. Now, all these people
after Pearl Harbor said basically, we're in this war, we support the war,
right But he didn't. He didn't. That wasn't good enough for FDR.
So he wanted to prosecute them. His attorney general was pretty good at
fending him off. Who was you know who also opposed the Japanese in tournament
his own Attorney General, Francis Biddle, and fending him off to some extent.
But then finally they decided to prosecute these sort of smaller fry, these
guys that would edit like a small newsletter in Kansas, right that was anti
Roosevelt or you know, maybe had some anti Semitic aspects, These sort of
rural people. These other people, they didn't even know each other, and
they were most of the most part and accused of being part of a worldwide
Nazi conspiracy to create a Nazi government in the United States. And it was
just bogus. I mean, they scooped up some people with the boone and
stuff like that and put them in this mass trial. But they would prosecute
people like initial prosecution was included. This is the biggest name, the guy
that was the publisher of the New York Enquirer, which later become the National
Enquirer. They brought all these people in into this mass trial in Washington from
all around the country, accused them of participating together in a conspiracy and went
to town force edition and they was a big headline news. And gradually there
was more and more opposition to it. Even the Washington Post, which had
cheered it on, came out against it eventually and compared it to the Moscow
Trials of the nineteen thirties, and there was significant opposition to it. Initially
there was a lot of support because I was, well, the government can't
be lying. Boy, they've caught this big conspiracy here. Well, I
was going to ask for that was looked into. There was nothing there.
Well, I mean esscentially. The judge died. It was such it was
such a mess. He couldn't take an maybe, you know, maybe just
put him in. He had a heart attack and died and they never replaced
him, and they basically the whole thing collapsed. They never had heard it.
They dismissed the charges ultimately, but it dragged on for a couple of
years. Well here's they formally dismissed the charges. So here's the thing.
Because you you are somebody who is well studied in a diverse, uh arena
of history. I mean, you're you're, you're all over the place.
So I'm curious because coincidentally or not coincidentally, but you know, at the
same time that they're making this charge, there were groups that were trying to
do this. I mean, there there was this this whole thing that was
filmed in New York City in Madison Square Garden of these people that talking pretty
openly about doing this. So were they attaching it to that, you know
conspiracy that movement that you know, because there is a white nationalist movement that
was attempting to do this at one point. Were they trying to attach these
people who were in opposition to Roosevelt to that or were they creating a different
conspiracy of sorts here? That's what I'm trying to ask, because it does
seem as though there were people that were pressing for this idea in that time
period. And then, of course, you know, once war was engaged
with, you know, World War two, once the United States enters it,
and a lot of that stuff kind of gets real quiet because nobody wants
to do that in public now if Germany's the enemy, right, kind of
drove it underground. But I mean there were these movements, right, So
I mean, is this them trying to graft it on to the existing movement
or were they suggesting a completely different conspiracy or could you even make heads or
tails of that? Well, I think they are trying to graft it on
to it. Initial the initial sedition prosecution did not include those kinds of people,
and then eventually they reformatted it after it was already getting a lot of
criticism and brought in a lot of these guys that, you know, you
could say to various degrees, you know, were were pro Nazi, right,
you know, some booned people, that kind of thing. There was
a guy that there was a party called the American Destiny Party, which was
kind of you know, I guess you could say had had those aspects to
it. So you did, you did attempt to sort of bring these people
in, but then they would include these guys like there was this guy,
like I said, who had a newsletter in Kansas. He was an old
populist right, and ended up after Pearl Harber saying we got to beat these
Japanese. I'm behind the president, but was very critical of when he had
some anti Semitic views as well. So it was a mix of people.
Of course, you had native anti semitism in the United States as well.
It was very prevalent anti Semitic statements by Roosevelt, quite a few of them.
Well there was really now so that kind of brought these people in,
and I think what FDR with the Hope was by some people Biddle was just
you know, trying to pease FDR, but the left people that supported sedition
trials thought well, maybe we can show that these people had some sort of
connection with more mainstream people. It's very much like today. They wanted to
bring in people like Representative Hamilton Fish, they wanted to bring in people like
Charles Lindberg, they wanted to have them prosecuted, very similar today, and
some of them saw, well, maybe these people will implicate them and we'll
be able to go after the big fish. That's what FDR wanted to do,
but Biddle, to his credit, held him off. So I think
that that's something that's going on here. It's very similar today. Right,
Well, we'll get these J six defendants and then we're gonna get you know,
Ted Cruz or whatever. Right, you have people with that kind of
hope, right right, And I think that that was going on here.
So it's, you know again, it's law enforcement doing what law enforcement does.
They take in the smaller guy, try to flip him to get the
bigger one exactly, and that's you know again, some people would say,
oh, that's all politics, but no, that's also standard law enforcement.
That's what you do. You get somebody who's clearly you know, working,
who might have the ability to reach and get to an upper echelon person,
so that you can nail down that upper echelon person because you're willing to let
go the little guy. I often make the drug explanation here because I'm familiar
with that world, and the idea is that, yeah, you get the
low level guy, and if he knows the distributor, you let him go
so you can get the distributor, and if you can get the distributor,
you get the guy who's the importer, and so on up the chain until
you can finally go a Rico trial. And that's what they'll try and do.
But is it realistic? And was he not just turning against people for
the sake of propaganda or was it just to put on a public face.
Because here's my last question. Uh, and it's about Joe Kennedy, Because
Joe Kennedy is let go by FDR right, and why because what does everybody
always cite? Well, it was because he sided with Chamberlain on appeasement for
Hitler. But isn't that always supposed to be the explanation? Yeah? And
and and he's you know, ambassadord of the UK, and he's like basically
you know, he doesn't want to go to war, so he's he's he's
not you know, they're not entirely happy with them, right, He's kind
of he's kind of regarded as a loose cannon who's not with the program,
which is, you know, we want to get in this war somehow,
and he doesn't. He doesn't think that way. Yeah, that's the context
I was going for there, is that basically, if you're in a position
of working for him, it's difficult. It's really interesting that Biddle kept his
job because couldn't the president have let go the attorney general, right if he
had not appeased him to some degree during this entire you know, fiasco as
you describe it, of sedition, which is interesting because again, like you're
saying, there's probably a bunch of people that were caught up in this that
were just well, they just didn't say the right things, so they got
swept into it, and it kind of takes away some of the sting from
the actual sedition. Something that is sedition, something that is somebody working,
you know, with an enemy to give aid and comfort to an enemy,
et cetera, which I think is actually more kin to the definition of treason,
but whatever, we're still in the same ballpark, Okay, So you
know it's it's crazy though, and nobody thinks about this interesting though that you
did. Your timing is very good with it, because indeed we're seeing the
same sort of thing where it's like, well, let's see if we can
get the big group guys, uh, you know, by taking down some
of these others that happen to be there, et cetera, et cetera.
Which you know, I've got mixed feelings about the J six people, honestly,
because some of them I think were just you know, swept up in
the moment and not bright enough to realize what they were swept up into.
And others I think might have had, you know, greater aspirations. And
you know, since I'm not directly involved with law enforcement, I don't have
the investigation in front of me or all the communications, I can't see it
all. But something is not right about what's going on in some of these
cases, and often politics plays a role. But anyway, that's my thoughts,
not as that's got nothing to do with David Beato his thoughts here.
It's just I'm bringing it up since you brought it up. Well, I
mean that is that is a very you know, interesting point. My argument
is that sedition is such a malleable term like rico. The rico is similar
all very valuable term, and nine times out of ten what you see is
there's you know, they use it as a catch all kind of thing.
And I think that's what you're finding in Ja six now, where there were
bad actors there. My argument is, then prosecute them. If they're guilty
of vandalism, if they're guilty of assault, go after them. Right,
But you're getting people that are you know, thrown in jail for over twenty
years that weren't even there. So I mean it gets a little dicey,
you know. Can you advocate some theory about the constitution that's regardless seditious?
You know, I would prefer let's stick to some basics. Right, you're
guilty of theft, you're guilty of violence, be prosecuted for that. Move
on. Where are we going to go after the Daza protesters? Now?
It just gets ridiculous. Where exactly where is the injured party? Where is
the damaged property? Because that's basically what it comes down to with law enforcement,
and that's what it should be. But you know again, I'm a
libertarian of some sort of stripe, a weird stripe, but a libertarian basically
anyway. All together, though, this is an interesting portrait of FDR that
you present here, and I wonder if you wouldn't give it a little summation
here, and I'll provide the link in the show notes for you guys for
the podcast, so that you can go ahead and purchase the book. I
definitely advise it, which, by the way, the way that Professor Beta
writes, I like it. It's not I don't know how to describe it,
but look, it doesn't wind up going over your head. I don't
have this feeling like I'm reading a book by a professor, okay, which
is a good thing to me, right, because I don't like being lectured
to, which is very weird. I feel like I'm being lectured to by
books. Yes, Chuck, you're a weird guy, but it does happen
where you're kind of being lectured to. That's not it. There's a very
interesting story that's laid out here which I did not complete, and I'm going
to complete because it's a fascinating portrait and present some things that I guarantee you
will not see in a lot of the very sanitized viewpoints of this particular his
oracle figure. So it is through the Let me let me get this up
in front of me real fast here, because it's there. It is through
the Independent Institute. I'll give you, guys the link for that, and
I'll also give you the because you can buy it there. But also I'm
gonna give you a link. I guess it's on Amazon as well and a
few other places. Yeah, it's available on Amazon, which means you'll be
able to probably get the kindle or the paperback version appears to be available in
both from what I can see, but either way, I would strongly suggest
it and also take a look at the other work that we talked about on
the show on TRM Howard, which is a rather undercovered, not really featured
individual in civil rights history, which, believe me, you really should take
a look at it, because he's a different sort of guy. I like
him. I like him a lot better than I do a lot of the
guys in the sixties, to be honest with you. I mean, I
get the idea of peace and nonviolence, but this man had the pragmatic sense
to be carrying a gun when you need it to and I like him.
So anyway, there goes my commentary, Professor Paido, Sorry but yeah again
the New Deal's war on the Bill of Rights, the untold story of FDR's
concentration, camps, censorship, and mass surveillance, because indeed, at my
commentary again, mass surveillance existed long before the Twitter files existed, long before
Oh what was that guy snowden right, you know who told us about the
NSA. Although you know what, the federal government plays many a role in
this book for sure, and shutting down dissent and all that good stuff.
And monitoring people's communications. Yeah, that existed before the cell phone too,
just so you know. But anyway, how would you give a little summation
on this book, like what is your overall sort of not conclusion. I
don't I want people to read your conclusion, which I have not yet,
but I'm waiting to get there and want to see what it is you conclude
from this work. But I mean, give people an idea of what you
would like them to take away partially from this book, so that they still
need to read it to get out of the title really says it in a
lot of ways. The New Deal's war on the Bill of Rights so focused
on that, and of course there's an irony there because FDR is the guy
that gave us the Four Freedoms right that four freedom speech, which I sort
of tell the story, you know, put that in some sequence. But
basically my argument is that this administration was the most hostile towards the Bill of
Rights. I would say, certainly any modern president, and I would include
I would include Woodrow Wilson across the board speech privacy, certainly Japanese and Tournament.
So I give a lot of examples. There's a lot of primary research.
I also look at the racial angle. One of the targets of the
New Dealers was a black Republican in Memphis. At the time blacks could vote
in Tennessee in the organized a rally multi racial rallying was shut down by an
aly of FDR. Anyway, you covered it for the most part, But
let me sort of say one hopeful aspect of this, this is a lesson
for today. I would say, if there's a lesson here that you have
many examples of left right coalitions defending the Bill of Rights that you do not
see as much today, for example, Norman Thomas, I guess you could
say the AOC of his time, and the fact that he's the whether Bernie
Sanders of his time. He's the head of the Socialist Party. Socialist Party
candidate is a tiger. You're defending civil liberties for conservatives and for others,
and you're going to find that on the left as well. During World War
Two, a lot of the critics of the sedition trial were new dealers who
said this has gone too far. So that is a hopeful aspect. And
we can find many, many examples in there of pushback, including by the
bureaucracy, lower elements of the bureaucracy and the FBI and the Justice Department and
in law and so forth, and we need I would like to see more
of that, and maybe someday we will see more of that coalitions between the
left and the right to say, look, our civil liberties are only going
to be threatened, threatened unless we defend your civil liberties. That would be
the asel you used to do that. They don't really do it like they
used to. Yeah, no longer. And that's the thing is that,
Look, I can feel that hopeful message, but then I feel defeated again.
And I'll tell you why, because the left and the right of this
day, this era that you're studying here is irrecognizable. It's not even close
to what we have today. In my mind, the left and the right
are not reconcilable with what they were then. It seems like to me,
I agree with you. You had friendships across the political spectrum. Someone like
jhl Menkin kind of a libertarian, really right, You had friendships with everybody.
They all loved him, a lot of them did socialists, etc.
And you see that Norman Thomas, one of his big friends was the Republican
candidate Alfred Land, and they were a tag team for civil liberties. Can
you imagine that with AOC now or even Bernie Sanders. So I agree with
you that is a difference, and it's a sad difference. Yeah, definitely.
But one more time, just for the record, guys, it is
the New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights, the untold story of FDR's
concentration camp, censorship and mass surveillance. And the author is David T.
Beato b E I t O. I think I spelled it right. I
took it down from in front of me But anyway, I definitely recommend this
book. It is very interesting and once again another look and a more honest
look, I would say, at this political figure that still does retain a
great deal of popularity. The ocell effect is done for tonight. No matter
who you are, where you are, when you are, I'm merely o'celly,
all of you are indeed the effect. Go ahead and follow the links
in the show notes. Wall Street, Window dot Global, Silver, the
stock Market, wall Stream, Window dot dot. Perhaps you're invested deeply,
Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started. Wall
Street Windows don com doo don com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of
the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he
gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wallstreet Window dott go there, now
go there, Now go there Now Radio is sponsored by Wallstreet Window dot com.
Do you like history, real history that you were never taught in schools?
Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear bombs and nation building in Southeast Asia by
author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes
to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War nuclear BOMs in
nation building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your
copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place
and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never
before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been
assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place
in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In
the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis
LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range
missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they
were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael
Swanson reveals why and we'll show you what President Kennedy was up against. For
more information the War State dot com. Go ahead, call it the truth
about the JAFA assassination. Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Diddy Baker's wild claim? Oswald girlfriends you knew Ruby and Barry cancer weapons?
Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't
make me a wagon. But okay, Bilby and I'm trying to present the
murder of John Kennedy. Come on now, has a real effort on the
DAFA assassination. Book into her claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith
Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of
a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the
case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request
it by contacting doctor Brown at ki as jfk at aol dot com. It's
a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Barry
Baker in her own words. Thank you for all the great information.