Shrieks about how the deficit would hurt the economy were also loud and demanding in the midst of the Great Depression, when far greater credence was given to the conventional economic wisdom of the day. So, in response, FDR, in 1936, slashed spending on public works and the first Social Security taxes took effect and guess what happened?

From his inauguaration in the Spring of 1933 until late 1936, the US GDP soared 50% and manufacturing was back to the 1929 levels. But then, the 'cure' espoused by the 1930's deficit hawks took effect, and in 1937 the economy got slammed by a severe recession.

When FDR repented of the folly of listening to the 'deficit hawks,' including Henry Morgenthau, and resumed New Deal programs and spending, the economy swiftly rebounded. But the damage had been done. The Depression lasted two more years than it should have. Had FDR stuck his fingers in his ears instead of listening to the deficit hawks of his day, the US economy would have been booming by 1940, if not sooner.

No,no,no.....Britain buying P-40s to fight Hitler ended the Depression.

Glenn Beck told me.

So we have a high school graduate, former drunk, recent convert to mormonism who would like us to think he knows shit about the economy or the history of the last century.

He may know quite a bit about Father Coughlin.

Let us stipulate that Beck is a fascist, a worthy protege of the rabble rousing crank Father Coughlin.

By his own admission in two autobiographical works, Barack Obama is indebted to and warmly embraces the social analysis and action program of the left-wing crank, Saul Alinsky.

Both of these "cranks" are authoritarians, deeply opposed to the liberal foundations of our society and government, supremely confident that they can see truth to which others are blind and were bent on imposing their utopian visions by whatever means necessary.

Beck, the purported/assumed apostle of Coughlin, is a sublimely glib talk show host and entertainer.

Obama, the acknowledged admirer of Alinsky, is the sublimely glib occupant of the White House.

Which of these two situations is more deserving of concern from the perspective of those of us who, like our founding fathers, value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, above all other political values?

If Alinsky/Obama is not your answer, you need to go back and take Logic 101 again.

1. What has Obama done that reflects any of Alinsky's thoughts?

2. Obama has done nothing but attempt to clean up the mess left to him by Bush. What action has he taken that leads you to think that he is an authoritarian? Please be specific and let's not spend a lot of time on the White House's comments on Fox Noise....

The silly rhetoric that the anti-Obama crowd uses to keep from having to actually address the issues is just plain sad.

Obama has not taken over the automobile companies or the banks.

Obama is not attempting to take over the health care industry.

I don't think you know much about Alinsky or his accomplishments. At the time when he was active there were still blacks being lynched. The organizing efforts that he is credited with allowed workers to unionize a host of industries where they were treated outrageously by the owners and managers. If you knew just how bad things were in the 1920s and 30s then you probably wouldn't mind Alinsky so much.