Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Sean Hannity: Dr. Qanta Ahmed- Here's What Life Under Sharia Law Is Like For A Woman

Source: Dr. Quanta Ahmed-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

For the life of me I don't understand why so-called Progressives today stand up for Sharia Law, or at the very least do not speak out against it and instead label Liberals when we speak out against it and even speak the truth about as bigots. How is Sharia Law any better than the Christian-Right in America. Where in the Bible Belt can women not vote, drive a car, not be able to travel without a male chaperone, have to cover their faces and completely cover their bodies when put in public, not even allowed to swim, risk death if they're caught committing adultery. Where in the Bible Belt can gays be put to death by their government simply for being gay? I'm not a fan of the Christian-Right obviously. At the very least they're stuck in a world that no longer exists and are authoritarian bigots as well.

As Richard Dawkins said on Bill Maher back in October, 'if Islamism and Sharia Law is part of the Islamists as today's so-called Progressives have claimed, then the hell with their culture.' What is progressive about treating women and gays like second-class citizens and even slaves. This is authoritarianism at its worst and to a certain extent even makes Marxism and Christian Conservatism, look moderate at best. At one point I didn't think that was ever possible with how authoritarian both of those ideologies are especially when it comes to individuality and expression. Anyone who calls them self a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist, should hate Sharia Law. Because it goes against everything that you at least say you are in favor of. Being a Liberal, Progressive, or Feminist.

Everyone on the Left especially people who are either Atheists, or my case Agnostic, should not just hate Sharia Law, but speak out against it. And stand up for minority rights, gays and women in these countries that live under Sharia Law. Like the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, just to use as two examples. And not call people bigots simply speaking the truth against a non-Christian religion where the members of it are overwhelmingly non-Caucasian and especially non-Anglo Saxon. In the name of political correctness, because you have some Far-Left Utopian notion that minorities including religious minorities, have some right to never be criticized and offended about anything.
Qanta Ahmed: Human Rights in Saudi Arabia


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The Concluding Chapters: Rita Hayworth in The Bastard 1968

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Concluding Chapters: Rita Hayworth in The Bastard 1968

A chance to see Rita Hayworth in color and when she was still very cute and beautiful. Not how she looked in the 1940s and 50s, but still looking very good and sounding great. Her voice always made her sound a lot younger than she actually was and her smile always made her seem younger as well. And she still had the body as well as we’re still talking about one of the top actress’s in Hollywood as well. She was truly special and I just wish we could have seen a lot more of her in color, before she was born for color TV and film.

As far as this film whether you want to call it the Sons of Satan, or The Bastard and I might add The Bastards, because we’re talking about two sons who are brothers who are professional criminals as thieves, it’s the same thing. Two guys who went real bad and one of them even worst by beating the hell out of his brother to keep all the money and jewels that they just stole together. These are guys that only their beautiful adorable mother could love, while their father goes out of their way to pretend he doesn’t even know them and perhaps wears disguises when he’s seen with his sons. So people don’t think he’s their father.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald- Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald- Venezuela Votes For Change After 16 Years of Chavismo

The Neo-Communists and Neo-Marxists, (as I at least call them in Venezuela) finally not only have some competition, but a liberal democratic opposition to their authoritarian rule. And shows that there’s even a limit to the mount of socialism that Venezuelans will put up with in their country. Especially when it comes with a high cost of the lost of personal freedom and a strong economy. Just as the Cuban economy is improving and the economy starting to move again in Columbia, the Socialist Maduro Administration in Venezuela has seen their economy collapse.

Because of falling oil prices in their country and the Venezuelan government’s Marxist miss-management of their economy, a country that is energy independent and yet not able to pay for their bare essentials like toilet paper and even food. The people in Venezuela stood up and demanded change and chose the liberal democratic opposition the Democratic Party there, which in Venezuela would be considered right-wing, which tells you how Far-Left the current government in Venezuela is. And now The Maduro Administration will have an opposition Assembly that it will have to deal with. With real limits on their power.

It’s not so much socialism that is the problem here, but how far you go with it and are you democratic or not and allow for real personal and even economic freedom, including a free press, free speech and a true opposition. Or do you concentrate so much power in the central government, the executive and head of state. To look after and take care of everyone else for them. Which is what happened in Cuba fifty-five years ago and perhaps would happen in Venezuela if the Neo-Communists there were allowed to hold on power indefinitely.

What the Venezuelan people did with their Assembly elections is to say that there’s a limit to what they expect one government and one political party to do for them and what they’ll allow to do to them. That you can’t blame America and Venezuela’s allies for all the problems that are going on in Venezuela. That at some point a political party, the Neo-Marxist Socialist Party in Venezuela that has had all the power in Caracas for the last 16 years has to take responsibility for the condition of the country.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Newsmax: Newsmax Prime- J.T. Hayworth Interviewing Allan Ryskind About Dalton Trumbo

Source: Newsmax-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I haven't seen the Dalton Trumbo movie yet so I can't really comment on it at least in a credible sense and I'm not going to take the word of J.T. Hayworth and Allan Ryskind on it as well. Who both come from a very heavy right-wing partisan slant on it to say the least. Whatever you think of Dalton Trumbo's politics and I'm not a Socialist, democratic or otherwise, we're still talking about his politics here. The only reason why he was brought up in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 was because of his politics.

The so-called Red Scare at the start of the Cold War that drove a lot of Americans crazy in believing that communism was so dangerous that a great liberal democracy like America, which is the opposite of communism, couldn't survive in the same world as communism. That it wasn't just communist policies and communist states that had to be defeated and destroyed, but communist beliefs as well. That you needed a fascist state coming from the Far-Right, where everyone looked at politics and the world from the same point of view and all shared the exact same values. That is not freedom and free speech, but a form of fascism.

Dalton Trumbo, wasn't brought in front of HUAC because he was a communist agent for the Soviet Union or a spy or something like the Rosenberg's. He was brought in front of HUAC because he was  a Socialist in Hollywood and had a big mic and stage to get out his political beliefs. As much as the right-wing anti-Communist Warriors said they were defending freedom and liberty in the 1940s and 1950s, it would have been nice if only those things were true. Because instead they were defending what they claimed they were against. Which was fascism and statism.

You can say that Freedom of Speech is so important and that liberal democracy is so powerful that all views are welcomed to be expressed, because we're so strong as a country that we can tolerate extreme views from both the Far-Left and Far-Right and that Americans will be able to make up their own minds on these issues. But these things don't mean anything if you don't actually believe in them. What you do instead is say that freedom and free speech is so important that we have to stand up for the right for everyone to have their own views and be able to express them. Even if they're fringe and then hold them accountable for what they believe and say. But not try to shut them up and then we'll have true freedom and free speech.
Newsmax: Newsmax Prime- J.T. Hayworth Interviewing Allan Ryskind: Discusses a New Movie About Communism Inside Hollywood


Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Notes on Liberty: Brandon Christensen- From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and The Civil War in Syria

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress: Notes on Liberty: Brandon Christensen- From The Comments: A Libertarian Solution to DAESH (ISIS/ISIL) and The Civil War in Syria

An interesting idea to dealing with ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. But I gotta tell you its a non-starter. The idea that Turkey would unilaterally give up Kurdistan whether it’s in Turkey, Syria, or even Iraq, where they’re now involved in taking on Iraqi forces there that they are claim are terrorists, it aint happening. America, Iraq and Europe, who are all now involved in trying to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria, need Turkey on our side here. And they are already there bombing ISIS in Syria and we could use their troops on the ground as well. They know the land and people, being neighbors and everything else.

America, can’t take out ISIS by ourselves, or take out Bashar Al-Assad by ourselves. Unless you want to occupy another country 20-25 million people who doesn’t like us. And then end up being bailed out ourselves financially, by the IMF or even China, because we’re already so heavy in debt. And American taxpayers simply won’t pay for this especially if we’re by ourselves again in another Arab-Muslim land and country that doesn’t like us. And our taxpayers aren’t going to pay for this in either new taxes or budget cuts to programs they care about.

Which leaves us to a non-libertarian non-dovish and isolationist solution here. Which is called liberal internationalism and putting together a broad coalition that includes America, as well as Europe, Turkey, Iraq, the Iraqi-Kurds, to not only destroy ISIS and knock them completely out of power like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but knocks the Assad Regime out of power as well. America and Europe through the air in what is called a no fly zone, which is what we did in Libya four years ago. Turkey, the Syrian rebels, Iraq and hopefully Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the ground.

And tell that Russian bullish asshole Vlad Putin, that he can be part of the solution here and have a stake in the new Syria where millions of Syrians don’t want to overthrow their own government, because they’re no longer living under a Baathist psycho dictator, or they can be part of the problem. And risk having another one of their planes shot down in Syria this time. But from a first-world NATO jet, or firepower. America, can’t do this ourselves, certainly Iraq and Syria can’t do it either. We could take out Bashar Al-Assad and his regime by ourselves, but again that would leave us with another mid-size to big country that we would be stuck occupying. We have to do this through coalition.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Robert Farley- What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Robert Farley- What If America Had 'Eliminated' Saddam Hussein?

To answer Robert Farley's question, I think the answer would be chaos. If you think 2003 was a bad time to invade and take out the Hussein Regime in Iraq, especially the unilateral way we did it, that would have been a great time compared with 1991. We take out Saddam in 1991 and he's either replaced by another Baathist dictator like one of his sons and what would we have gained from that? Or almost twenty-five years later we're still trying to occupy Iraq today. America, was in recession in 1991 and had its own economic and financial problems at home. And couldn't afford to take on the responsibility of occupying another big country.

And the economic boom that we had in the 1990s probably doesn't come about in America, because we're spending so much money in Iraq. At least in 2003 there was something that looked like an opposition and there were people that could come in and at least temporarily run the Iraqi Republic. It just took them more than two-years after the invasion to make that come about. There wasn't any at least moderate opposition to the Baathists in 1991. There was Saddam and his Baathists and anyone who opposed them risked their own lives as a result.

The 1991 Gulf War was a very simply and well-executed. Get Iraq out of Kuwait and protect our economic and energy interests in Kuwait. That war was in the national and self-interest of the United States. To not have a Baathist dictator in charge of one of the largest oil suppliers in the world to go on top of his already large supply of oil and gas in Iraq. This was not some idealistic neoconservative utopian war that was about bringing freedom and liberal democracy to a country of twenty-million that had no idea what those things were.

President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Council, didn't want to invade and occupy a country about the size of California in land and about the same population as Texas. Just because Iraq invaded Kuwait, an Arab ally of America's. All they wanted to do was get Iraq out of Kuwait and put Iraq in a tight box so they couldn't invade anyone else again. Which they remained in for the next twelve years with Iraq being so weak that they had a hard time feeding themselves. In were never in any position to attack another country again.

The 1991 Gulf War, was conservative foreign policy and national security at its best. Protect American national interests which was the energy supply coming from Kuwait. Which has a peaceful and moderate regime, as well as a strong economy. And get an evil tyrant out of that country and box him in so he can't invade anyone else. Not to bring peace and liberal democracy to a country that has never heard of those things. The Gulf War, was probably H.W. Bush's finest days as President of the United States, with the grand coalition of European and Arab allies that he bad behind him.

And why you wanted someone who his professional and national security background as Commander-In-Chief in a time like that. Instead of having a dove in there who generally sees American strength and use of force as a bad if not evil think, who tends to be against the American military and things that it does. Or someone in there who would've done nothing and froze, because they didn't know what to do. Because they lacked the experience and judgement in foreign affairs. And another reason why the 2003 Iraq War was an unnecessary mistake, because we already had Saddam under control and so weak to the point that Iraq didn't even bother defending themselves in that war.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The American Conservative: Opinion: Tom Switzer- Dean of the Realists

Owen Harries-TAC-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The American Conservative: Opinion: Tom Switzer- Dean of the Realists

This might strange and even harsh, but the end of the Cold War was bad for the Republican Party and perhaps Conservatives as well. During the Cold War we all knew who was the enemy in America, both Conservatives and Liberals. Which was Marxist Communism and Marxists Communists and when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was no longer a dominant Marxist Communist country that posed a real threat to the United States. No longer a country that was powerful enough to reach the United States to destroy it, or defeat us in a war.

People will point to the People’s Republic of China, but there a couple of problems there. China has never had the power that the Soviet Union had at least militarily even though their economy now is larger and stronger than Russia’s ever was pre or post-Soviet Union. And even by the 1990s China had already started moving away from Marxist command and control state-run economics and started privatizing a lot of their economy. China, will probably become the world’s next superpower both economically and militarily, unless the European Union were to unify first, but China is not there even today.

Without that large Marxist state that Conservatives could point to as the enemy, they were left without a real enemy that posed a real threat to America. During the Cold War, foreign policy both from a conservative and liberal vantage point was easy. Be strong enough to be able to defeat Russia if we were to ever go to war, but hope you never have to do that by having a foreign policy that prevents that type of war form ever happening. As well as being strong enough to defend your allies if they are ever under attack. The whole purpose of NATO during the Cold War.

Containment, followed by the negotiated surrender and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was American Cold War policy in the 1980s. Without the Cold War there was a void left, because now America no longer needed to be strong enough to defeat the Soviet Union. Russia’s, economy was collapsing and they were moving to a form of state capitalism themselves, similar to what China did in the 1970s and 1980s. So the foreign policy debate in America became about how strong do we need to be to defeat who.

Another problem that Cold War Conservatives had is that they lost power in the early 1990s and wouldn’t be in the White House again for the rest of that decade after Bill Clinton and the Democrats were elected and reelected in 1992 and 1996. And it took the Clinton Administration a solid three years to figure out what their post-Cold War foreign policy was going to be as well. We no longer needed a Cold War military to defeat the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union was no longer around.

So both Democrats and Republicans agreed as part of deficit reduction in the 1990s to reduce the size of the military and the question became how strong we need to be to take on who. The Clinton Administration decided that it was going to fight against ethnic genocide in the Balkans, even though Yugoslavia was never a threat to America. And fight international terrorism, even though most of the terrorism was being performed by non-state actors.America was left as the lone superpower in the world almost left to wonder what they should do with all of their power.

By 2000-01, the fight against ethnic genocide became the so-called War on Terror after 9-11, even though America has officially been fighting against Islamic terrorism since the late 1970s if not longer. And we were no longer fighting a large superstate that was capable of destroying us, or really any other country that could destroy us. And there wasn’t any real precedent for fighting terrorist groups that were large and powerful enough to occupy territory and states. We were no longer trying to destroy, or prevent a superstate from trying to destroy us, but eliminate individual terrorist groups and brutal dictators from supplying these groups with weapons.

Even if those regimes didn’t have any history of working with terrorist groups. And I thinking of course about the War in Iraq. So this conservative realist foreign policy that was not about trying to destroy and eliminate a big powerful regime. But preventing them from destroying is and our allies. Was replaced by a neoconservative foreign policy on the Right that was about eliminating rogue regimes that we didn’t like. That weren’t a threat to us, but their own people. Expanding democracy even in countries that never heard of it. Neoconservative idealism had replaced conservative realism in the 2000s until it was replaced by American voters and dropped by the Republican Party. And the GOP has struggled with foreign policy ever since.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Noah Rothman- The Party of Religious Freedom?

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Noah Rothman- The Party of Religious Freedom?

The First Amendment- Prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. That is just covers Freedom of Religion in the United States under the First Amendment.

I don't like blogging about Donald Trump, because he's not a real presidential candidate. He's simply looking to further his own one-man reality TV career and perhaps get another book and documentary that of course is all about The Donald. As if there's nothing else going on in the world and no one else to write about. And if you watch CNN on the regular basis, you might get that impression from them anyway. But The Donald is pandering to a group of Americans on the Far-Right inside the Republican Party who believes only they have Freedom of Religion in America. And everyone else is subjected to what big government will allow them. Karl Marx would be proud.

The Republican Party and I think the establishment has already figured this out, but the party as a whole needs to decide are they going to be a party of Freedom of Religion, or are they going to be a fascist party that only tolerates religion and speech that they agree with. In other words is Freedom of Religion real for all believers and non-believers, or just for fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. Does Freedom of Speech cover all speech including offensive and critical speech of minorities, but speech that could come off as even anti-American to Democrats. Or just speech that Republicans agree with. Do Republicans want to be a party of freedom, or a fascist party that only supports the rights of people that Neoconservatives and the Far-Right already agree with.

With The Donald, again a one-man reality TV star that is keeping CNN and MSNBC in business all by himself, but shouldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But the Far-Right, the Ann Coulter's, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan's, etc of the world actually believe in this, garbage (to be kind) and would have no problem with either shutting down Mosques and rounding up all Muslims and perhaps Arabs in general. Either through executive force, or passing a couple constitutional amendments to do that, because neither one is constitutional right now. And that is what makes a pander and demagogue like Donald Trump dangerous. Because he will never come within a thousand delegates or more of winning the GOP nomination for president, or 270 votes of winning the Electoral College of winning the presidency as an Independent. But there plenty of people out there on the Far-Right who take him seriously and are using him for their own means.