The Tale of Michelle and the Blue Eagle

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Now that Barack has won reelection, I predict it will be full speed ahead for the food police and its leader Michelle Obama.

Not that she has ever worried about potential political ramifications, but free from themichelle yoke of her husband’s reelection, the gloves will certainly come off.

The regulations regarding food and beverages imposed by the likes of New York City Mayor Michael Doomberg are just the first volley of what will surely become national regulation.

Remember, there are no new ideas, just updated, refashioned collectivist schemes.

Could we see the reemergence of the “Blue Eagle” and the NRA? No, not that NRA. I’m speaking of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) put forth by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.

In his June 16, 1933 “Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act”, or NIRA, president Roosevelt described the spirit of the NRA: “On this idea, the first part of the NIRA proposes to our industry a great spontaneous cooperation to put millions of men NRAback into regular jobs this summer.” He added, “but if all employees in each trade now band themselves faithfully in these modern guilds-without exception-and agree to act together and at once, none will be hurt and millions of workers, so long deprived of the right to earn their bread in the sweat of their labor, can raise their heads again. The challenge of this law is whether we can sink self interest and present a solid front against a common peril.”

What a lovely statement that is, filled with wonderful collectivist ideas and fascist ideology.

The NRA was symbolized by the Blue Eagle, the brainchild of a retired Army General, Hugh S Johnson, which was displayed in many store windows and on store packaging.

The Blue Eagle and NRA membership was said to be “Voluntary”, while those businesses that didn’t “volunteer”, as it were, often paid the price enduring boycotts and many did not survive.

Although the NRA was finally ruled unconstitutional in 1935, it was looked upon dreamily by progressives and, of course, intellectuals.

Historian, Clarence B Carson wrote:

At this moment in time from the early days of the New Deal, it is difficult to recapture, even in imagination, the heady enthusiasm among a goodly number of intellectuals for a government planned economy. So far as can now be told, they believed that a brightBlue Eagle new day was dawning, that national planning would result in an organically integrated economy in which everyone would joyfully work for the common good, and that American society would be freed at last from those antagonisms arising, as general Hugh Johnson put it, from “the murderous doctrine of Savage and wolfish individualism, looking to dog eat dog and devil take the hindmost”.

The NIRA and NRA were, in fact, right out of the fascist playbook and would have fit smartly in both fascist Italy and Hitler’s Germany.

Any businessman who refused to display the blue Eagle was, not surprisingly, considered to be a suspect American, one who had to be dealt with. To deal with such dissidents, pro-New Deal groups organized well-publicized economic boycotts designed to pressure these unpatriotic dissidents into getting with the program.

The NIRA declared that US industries should combine into cartels, where they would set codes for prices, wages and working conditions with which all the companies in that industry were required to comply.

They unfortunately found out, it was not so easy to control compliance.

In his book, “The Roosevelt Myth”, author John T Flynn wrote:

“The NRA was discovering it could not enforce its rules. Black markets grew up. Only the most violent police methods could procure enforcement. In Sidney Hillman’s garment industry, the code authority employed enforcement police. They roamed through the garment district like storm troopers. They could enter a man’s factory, NRA blue eagle.tifsend him out, line up his employees, subject them to minute interrogation, and take over his books on the instant. Night work was forbidden. Flying squadrons of these private coat-and-suit police went to the district at night, battering down doors with axes looking for men who were committing the crime of sewing together a pair of pants at night. But without these harsh methods many code authorities said there could be no compliance because the public was not back of it.”

So, is this what we’re in for? It worked, or more aptly put, was imposed once before.

Today’s progressives and socialists are nothing if not patient. They have learned not to try what FDR did; take a big chunk all at once.

They will poke, prod; nudging where they can, mandate with Executive Order, where they dare.

But rest assured, those currently in power would like nothing more than to resurrect a program such as this.

With banners such as “no trans fats” and required calorie counts displayed on storefronts and packaging, lawsuits being brought against fast food restaurants for making our socialismchildren fat, I wonder where it will end.

Programs such as the Blue Eagle would surely be an easier sell today, with a majority of at least younger adults buying into socialism. In the 1930s, most had a greater appreciation of capitalism.

This appears to be the natural progression of things. Just look at smoking. They’ve all but banned that nationally and I believe food is where they are headed next.

Watch for the Blue Eagle coming to a storefront near you.

Attribution: Jacob G. Hornberger

Constituion 101 (10)

Lesson 10: “The Recovery of the Constitution”

Study Guide


Statesmanship, for Franklin D. Roosevelt, entailed the “redefinition” of “rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.” Fulfilling the promise of Progressivism, President Roosevelt’s New Deal gave rise to unlimited government. In contrast to Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ideological successors, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan sought the restoration of limited government. Today, our choice is clear: Will we live by the principles of the American Founding, or by the values of the Progressives?

Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his campaign for the presidency in 1932 by emphasizing the Progressive understanding of history and by calling for the “redefinition” of the old idea of rights. His “New Deal,” a series of economic programs ostensibly aimed at extricating America from the Great Depression, vastly enlarged the size and scope of the federal government. Unelected bureaucratic agencies—“the administrative state”—became a fact of American life.

Roosevelt’s call for a “Second Bill of Rights” sought to add “security” to the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Describing the “old rights” of life and liberty as “inadequate” without underlying economic security, Roosevelt called for new economic rights for all, including the right to a job, a home, a fair wage, education, and medical care. With these rights guaranteed, Roosevelt argued, real political equality finally could be achieved.

Following President Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy’s “New Frontier” and Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” continued the transformation of the relationship between the American people and their government. President Johnson redefined the government’s role by redefining equality itself: equality must be a “result” rather than a “right.” Expanded federal control over education, transportation, welfare, and medical care soon followed.

Announcing that “with the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” Ronald Reagan appealed to the principles of the American Founding in seeking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Maintaining that Progressivism and the consent of the governed are incompatible, Reagan called for a return to individual self-rule and national self-government.

A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.