Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Original Intent Doc: Cultural Marxism- The Idea of Eliminating Free Thought and Free Activity

Source: Cultural Marxism-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The video that you’ll see on this post, is the Far-Right version of social collectivism. That the traditional way of life from lets say the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right, should be the dominant way of life in America, if not the West as a whole. So for anyone who thinks I’m picking on Far-Left collectivists here meaning Marxists, actually I’m not. I’m going to go after both fringes from both wings when it comes to social collectivists in America.

Cultural Marxism, is the idea that free thought and activity are somehow dangerous to society. The idea being that when people think and act for themselves, they’ll think and act in the wrong way and put the state at risk. Cultural Marxism, at least to me along with communism, are Far-Left versions of fascism. The idea that individual freedom and individualism, are not only dangerous, but unnecessary, because Marx and the state knows best what people need to live well and what they should believe and know. So this is the Far-Left version of fascism and social collectivism.

Examples of Cultural Marxism, would be political correctness. The idea that free speech is dangerous, because it gives people the freedom to say things that Marxists and other leftist collectivists feel would be offensive to people they care about. So what you need is collective speech instead. And have an official authority to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate to say in society. And there is a right-wing version of political correctness and censorship as well. That I’ll get into later.

Another example of Cultural Marxism has to do with human activity and lifestyle. That masculinity and straight males in general, are dangerous for society. Because they tend to be dangerous, as well as sexist and especially if they’re Caucasian, they tend to be racist, sexist and homophobic. That religion, especially Western religions like Christianity, are dangerous for society. And what you need is a completely secular culture, or at least a culture without Christianity and Judaism. And instead everyone would look to Marx for their inspiration.

Now the right-wing version of Cultural Marxism. I’m not sure if there’s one term for right-wing collectivism. I tend to look at so-called Christian-Conservatism. But even so-called Christian-Conservatives, who live very traditionally culturally conservatives lives, are not looking to force their way of life on society as a whole. I believe William F. Buckley, who tended to be conservative-libertarian on a lot of social issues, but lived a pretty culturally conservative life, would be a pretty good example of a Christian-Conservative, who doesn’t want to combine their religion with state.

I also look at neoconservatism, or the New-Conservatism when it comes to right-wing social collectivism. And what they believe is that America has been going downhill since the 1960s when the non-Marxists on the Left, Liberals and Liberal-Libertarians, came to prominence and of age. And said the 1940s and 1950s traditional way of life, is too constrictive for them. And people need the freedom to live their own lives and be themselves. Live as individuals and not as members of the collective, or collectivists. And what Neoconservatives want to do is impose the 1940s and 1950s way of life on the country as a whole. Instead of allowing Americans to live their own lives.

Neoconservative political correctness, would be the goal to eliminate speech that goes against the state and what the country is supposed to stand for. So political speech that goes against right-wing governmental policy. The way the Nixon Administration reacted to the anti-war movement in the early 1970s and doing all sorts of investigations about that movement and labeling them Communists. As well as the goal of censoring and eliminating entertainment like music and movies that the Christian-Right sees as immoral. Violent and sexual activity on TV and in music would be examples of this.

As a Liberal, I’m against collectivism in general, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. And this blog covers fascism coming from both fringes a lot. Americans, should be free to act and think for themselves and then be held accountable for how they act and what they say. You put all the facts, information and thoughts out there, teach people how to think, but not what to think and you’ll create and educated society where people will be able to figure these things out for themselves. Instead of trying to create a collectivist society, where people are treated like idiots and where the central state does their thinking and acting for them.
Original Intent Doc: Cultural Marxism- The Corruption of America

Friday, August 28, 2015

The American Conservative: Opinion: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

Daniel P. Moynihan
The American Conservative: Opinion: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.

That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.

What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.

So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Hoover Institution: Colin Dueck: The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today

The Obama Doctrine
Hoover Institution: Colin Dueck: The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today

President Barack Obama laid out The Obama Doctrine in the spring of 2011. He obviously wanted to move away from the Bush Administration’s neoconservative unilateral military force is always the first option policy. But he’s not an isolationist from the Far-Left, or anywhere else that sees America and the American military as a force of evil and the reason for violence around the world. This argument that President Obama is afraid to use the military, or is anti-military, simply doesn’t hold. He expanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009, the so-called Afghan surge. And committed us to the Libyan no fly zone in 2011. And tried to get Congressional approval to hit the Assad Regime from the air in 2013, but failed to get it.

To put it simply, Barack Obama is a liberal multi-lateral internationalist. That America should be strong at home both militarily and economically. So no one would want to, or would be able to attack the United States. But work with our allies abroad to deal with crisis’ oversees. That America should take a lead role around the world, but simply can’t lead the world and certainly not police the world, especially by ourselves. This idea that President Obama has pulled America back, is true. But he has pulled America back in the sense that we no longer try to do everything ourselves. We negotiate with others especially to avoid war and avoid invading countries simply because we see them as dangerous.

President Obama, is not some New-Left radical from the 1960s. Who never believes in the use of force and is a pacifist as well as an isolationist. And if you don’t believe that, just ask Code Pink, who do represent the Far-Left in America, at least when it comes to the American national security and foreign policy. Code Pink, has all sorts of issues when it comes President Obama on foreign policy and national security. President Obama, believes in defending our interests and defending our values around the world and even using our military to do that. But that even though we are the strongest power in the world, we aren’t the only one. And that we have partners who have responsibilities as well. Canada and Europe especially, but in the Middle East and Asia, as well.

I think the only thing that I agree with this right-wing anti-Obama presentation from the Hoover Institution here, is that President Obama, does believe domestic policy is related to foreign policy and national security. I would just put it differently. The President believes that for America to be as strong as it possibly can, we need to be as strong at home as possible as well. We need a strong economy, a modern infrastructure system, a modern immigration policy, reform our tax code, get off of foreign oil and gas, develop our own natural resources, expand American exports. So we have the resources that we need and the influence that we need to defend our national interests and values.

Monday, August 24, 2015

The National Interest: Blog: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

Russian-Chinese Alliance?
The National Interest: Blog: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

I believe Les Gelb has the right attitude here and he’s someone who knows about American Power being the President of the Council of Foreign Relations. American Power, it depends on how you define it. I find think of most Americans when they think of American Power think of the U.S. Armed Forces and the broader National Security State. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, to use as an example. But our entire National Security Council is part of American Power. Which includes the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as our Treasury Department.

See American Power, is our Armed Forces, and the National Security State, but it is also our economy. The stronger our economy is, the better our military can be. The more effective our economic sanctions against terrorist states can be. The main reason we won the Cold War against Russia, is because our economic strength. Their Marxist system simply failed their country. And their people had enough and you saw all of those non-ethnic Russian Soviet Republics break up and form their own countries. America, probably had a stronger military than Russia during the Cold War. But our economy and economic system was the main weapon there.

Now the purpose of American Power again using the NSC and economy to make America as strong as it can be. So we never have to worry about our own security. At least in the sense that someone could invade us, or wipe out a section of our country, or even attack us from the air. Which is where we’ve always have been at least since Pearl Harbor. The purpose of American Power is not to rule the world, or even police the world. At least by ourself, but to use our power to more than adequately defend us when needed. And to advance our interests and values that a lot of the world already shares.

I agree with Les Gelb, that America is and should be the strongest leader in the world. Simply because we are and there isn’t another democratic developed nation in the world that is capable of replacing us, or even coming close. But being the strongest leader in the world and the most powerful country economically and everything else, is different from being the leader of the world. And having to take all the risks and pay all the price when some crisis develops around the world. While everyone else debates what America should be doing at the debating society known as the United Nations. While they don’t do anything themselves.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Liberty in Our Time: G. Edward Griffin: More Deadly Than War: The Communist Revolution in America: What Revolution?

G. Edward Griffin
Liberty in Our Time: G. Edward Griffin: More Deadly Than War: The Communist Revolution in America: What Revolution?

Communists, at least self-described Communists have never had any real power in America. The only real movement they had in America that was able to gain any momentum, popularity and gain attention, was the Black Panther and Black Power movement of the 1960s. That was made up of more than African-Americans, but other Americans as well. The New-Left of the 1960s, had both a social democratic and Communist movement in it. But Socialists, at best today whether they self-describe themselves that way, or not, are at best 15-20% of the population. Marxist-Communists, again self-described, or not, are not even ten-percent in America.

When you look at third-parties in America, there have only been two third-parties that have gained any prominence and traction in the last twenty-years or so. The Libertarian Party, that has a large growing movement in and outside of the Republican Party. And the social democratic Green Party, that has a growing movement in and outside of the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders movement, is essentially the Green Party right now ideologically. And the title of this film is The Communist Revolution in America and it came out in 1969. And yet who are these Communist revolutionaries who are going to put this revolution together.

What this film really looks like to me, is a right-wing propaganda film, or at least a right-wing perspective and the opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That, "civil rights freedom fighters who non-violently for the most part fought for equal rights for African and other Americans in the 1960s, really weren't freedom fighters at all. They were really Russian agents working for the Communist Party in Russia to spread communism in America." This looks like a lot of, right-wing garbage to put it mildly. Anglo-Saxon mostly Americans who in 1969 of course were still angry about losing all of those civil rights battles of the 1960s.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

The Washington Post: Opinion: Jennifer Rubin: John Kasich is The un-Trump

Governor John Kasich Ohio
The Washington Post: Opinion: Jennifer Rubin: John Kasich is The un-Trump

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t vote for John Kasich for president perhaps on any circumstances. Unless there was some reason why only Republicans were running for president. But what I’ve seen from him so far looks like he’s the best the Republican Party has and is someone who they desperately need if they’re going to win Latinos back and win back the White House. The Republican Party, won’t win the White House back until they win Latinos, Asians, Jews and get closer to Democrats when it comes to women. They’re Anglo-Saxon Southern-Protestant rural base is dying off and they know that.

Governor Scott Walker, simply too far-right on social issues. Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, allowing for employers and other groups to deny gays access simply because they’re gay, no abortion under any circumstances, he’s flipped on immigration and is no longer in favor of a policy to deal with the 10-15 million illegal immigrants other than perhaps sending them home. So he’s basically the Rick Santorum of 2016 and would have a hard time winning outside of the Bible Belt and would have a hard time even winning his home state.

Donald Trump, is nothing more than a one man reality show and if he still looks like a contender and December, I’ll consider apologizing. Jeb Bush, doesn’t want to be his brother, or father and yet its hard to tell how he differs from G.W. at least on economic policy. He now says the Iraq War was a mistake, but blind people could see that. He doesn’t seem to know what he wants to be right now other than what he was in Florida as Governor. But not a lot of people know what kind of Governor he was. He might end up being a weaker frontrunner than Mitt Romney.

Marco Rubio, the younger Jeb Bush? He’s G.W. and Dick Cheney when it comes to foreign policy and national security. He hasn’t come out with much of an economic policy yet. On immigration, Senator Rubio, Governor Bush and Governor Kasich, are where the party needs to be to win back Latinos and probably Asians as well. But all three men are going to have to do better than that and offer a vision to win those groups back. But Kasich, is a little different. Blue-collar guy from Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nine-term U.S. Representative and two-term Governor of Ohio which is a swing state. One of the lead authors in Congress of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

John Kasich, has real Washington experience and real experience outside of Washington. As well as private sector experience that he had after he left Congress in 2001. He’s not a fan of same-sex marriage, but wouldn’t do anything to stop it and has said he’s even been to a gay wedding. This all coming from a center-right Republican. Republicans, have to win Ohio back, as well as breakthrough the Democratic lock on Asians and Latinos. They also need to win back blue-collar voters regardless of race, or ethnicity. Kasich, might be the only Republican who can do that. And if I’m Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush, Kasich would be the person I would be most concern about.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion- Paul R. Pillar: Right and Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

Source: Global Public Square
Source: The New Democrat

I believe I know how Peter Beinart, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, feel about the 2003 Iraq War. See, I supported it to. I thought it would be a good opportunity to one, eliminate a brutal Middle Eastern dictator in Saddam Hussein. Perhaps one of the top three most evil dictators of the 20th Century. I at least would put him in the same bastard class as Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler. And the idea of Saddam being allowed to continue to had weapons of mass destruction to be used against his own people, or use them against others, or perhaps sell them to terrorists, was unacceptable to me.

I wish I had the foresight of Dick Durbin. Who when was one of I believe twenty-two Senate Democrats who voted against the war. Sometimes it helps to be in Congress especially with a national security role and serving on one of those committees. And then maybe I would’ve seen the same lack of evidence that Saddam still even had WMD and a competent military, let alone a nuclear weapons program. Remember, the original justification for invading Iraq in 2002-03 and original being the key word here, is to prevent Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not to save a large country from a brutal dictator.

The lessons for Iraq, I think are pretty simple. Don’t invade a country unilaterally without a plan for the aftermath. What the country could look like in the short and long-terms after the regime is kicked out. Once you eliminate another country’s government, you then have the responsibility for governing that country until they can do that for themselves. That is what occupation is about.

If you’re going to invade another country simply to eliminate a brutal authoritarian regime and that country is not currently a threat to you, don’t do it unilaterally. Make the case the case to the country’s neighbors and your allies that the regime has to go, so we can save the people there from future murders and a genocide. Build a coalition to not only take out the regime, but to occupy the country in the short-term in the aftermath. Work with the opposition on the ground if you can and get their assistance.

The last lesson and I think might be the most important, other than believing the current evidence on the ground and not taking out the weapons inspectors before they’ve completed their work and this has more to do with the Iraq Civil War than anything else, is don’t try to fight for a country that won’t fight for themselves. One of the reasons why we’re still trying to assist Iraq twelve years after we knocked the Hussein Regime out of power, is because the Bush Administration set no deadlines. They said we would be there as long as we need to be. The new Iraq Government took that as forever and didn’t do their part to make sure that their country could be secure.

I know I said last lesson already, but I’ll close with this. And you can talk about hindsight all you want, but we had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. They were finding nothing and again I go back to the original justification point for the original reason to invade Iraq which was to eliminate their WMD and nuclear weapons program. But as the years went on the Bush Administration kept coming up for new reasons for invading Iraq.

And they finally settled on Saddam was evil and brutal and needed to go. If they took that to Congress even with a Republican House and a divided Senate, their Iraq War Resolution would’ve have never gotten approved. The American people wouldn’t have backed it. We know now that the original reason for invading Iraq that Congress and the country backed was never justified and backed up even at the time of the war.
CBS News: President George W. Bush Announces Invasion of Iraq

Saturday, August 15, 2015

The National Review: Staff: Amy Schumer and The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Free Speech Advocate
The National Review: Staff: Amy Schumer and The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Cenk Uygur, from The Young Turks, who is about as far-left as someone on the New-Left can get in America, I believe had the best line in this video. When he said that political correctness makes actual racism and real racial issues look small and non-important. He used the boy who cried wolf analogy. Which is really what a lot of this is about. It is one thing to disagree with what someone said about this person, or this group, but it’s another to say that person is a racist, or what they said was racist. Especially when what they said is accurate and funny at the same time.

If someone, or a group of people, whoever the person is, or the group of people is, has an issue, or weakness and someone accurately points that out and does it in a humorous way, what does the target, or targets of the critique and satire have to complain about. All the comedian, or commentator is doing is making an accurate statement and doing it in a humorous way. Also if someone says something that isn’t true about a person, or group, are they bigot, or are they just wrong? I mean when people have problems with the truth and reality, that is when they need to either become alcoholics and escape reality on a regular basis, or improve themselves and work on their shortcomings.

If I say that a lot of Southern Anglo-Saxon Christian-Conservatives got stuck in a time machine and were taken out of the year 1952, when women stayed at home and served their men, gays were locked in the closet and African-Americans, were second class citizens and served as servants to Caucasians. And brought up to 2015 when all Americans were free and able to live their own lives and were no longer partying like it was 1952 and instead lived in the real world that is modern America, would that make me a racist, or anti-Christian, or would I just be stating a fact and using humor to do that? Well that statement is right and there’s humor there. So what do Anglo Christian-Conservatives have to complain about?

Now use that analogy about Saudi Arabia as a country. A very conservative Muslim country, to say the least, just as water is wet and the North Pole is cold. If I said that Saudi-Muslims were stuck in the 1500s and view women as property of men. Women , aren’t even allowed to show their faces and bodies in public, they are not even allowed to drive and I could go on, but it would be very depressing. Now if I say this, am I a racist for making fun of Middle Eastern people and am I anti-Muslim, for making a joke about Muslims, or am I simply just stating a fact? Well again what part of that statement to you disagree with. Of course that statement is accurate and even funny.

The whole political correctness movement and their political correctness warriors, sound like a bunch of con men and con women. They’re not political correctness warriors, but fascist bullshit artists. On Planet PC. You can make fun of Christians, especially if they’re Caucasian and Southern and rural. You can make all the accurate and inaccurate jokes about them that you want to, but if you say something that is funny and correct about non-Caucasian-Christians, even if you’re correct, they label you as a bigot. And try to get you shut down. You can make all the fat men jokes you want, unless that man happens to be a racial, or ethnic minority. But it you make a fat women joke, you’re a sexist. Unless that women is a right-winger.

Political correctness warriors, need to go back to The Valley, or San Francisco, or New York City and sit down and smoke a joint. Just don’t buy it from an undercover cop, unless you’re in Washington State, Colorado, or Maryland. And chill, as well as develop a sense of humor. And learn that Caucasians and Christians, aren’t the only people who can be made fun of in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people with all the diversity and liberal free speech protections that we have. Funny accurate jokes, aren’t bigoted. But they’re funny and accurate regardless of the people who they’re targeted at.

Friday, August 14, 2015

PJ Media: Opinion: Rand Simberg: The Far-Left Hijacks The Word Liberal to Serve Their Agenda

PJ Media: Opinion: Rand Simberg: The Far-Left Hijacks The Word Liberal to Serve Their Agenda

I think the only thing that I would disagree with Rand Simberg in his piece other than the line about ‘murdering unborn babies’, is that liberalism is alive and well, but it is in the Democratic Party. Liberals, are center-left and by in large so are Democrats. But like with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has a far flank, or fringe even. With the Republican Party, it is the Christian-Right and Far-Right in general. With the Democratic Party, it’s the New-Left and Far-Left in general. Socialist, I guess would be the easy way to describe the New-Left, but it goes even further than that.

Collectivists, people who believe in the collective, or communitarian and even social democrat, would be the best way to describe the Democratic New-Left in America. Collectivists, whether it is Socialists when it comes to economic policy, or nanny statists when to comes to social issues, see individual freedom even something as basic and fundamental as free speech, as dangerous in America. They see individual freedom as freedom to make mistakes that the collective meaning society as a whole has to pay for. This covers both economic policy with a huge welfare state and high taxes across the board. But also a nanny state to make sure people aren’t making bad decisions with their personal lives.

So again we’re not just talking about a massive welfare state and high taxes across the board and an over regulated private sector with what is left of the private sector after the New-Left is through, but personal freedom would become very limited in America if the New-Left were in charge. Forget about free speech if the political correctness warriors were ever in charge. Say goodbye to that, because that would be replaced with collective speech. With some central committee getting to decide what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate for individuals to say to each other. So people who don’t deserve to be criticized and offended from the New-Left perspective aren’t offended.

But we’re also talking about a nanny state as well with the New-Left. So imagine Mike Bloomberg being in charge of the Special Committee on Human Behavior, or whatever it might be called. Anything that the New-Left either sees as dangerous, or inappropriate would be outlawed. It started with alcohol in the 1930s, so perhaps we would go back to alcohol prohibition and perhaps add tobacco, sugar and salt to that as well. The New-Left wouldn’t end the War on Drugs. Just release all racial and ethnic minorities who are in jail and prison as a result of the War on Drugs. As well as expanding the War on Drugs to include sugar, salt, caffeine and tobacco. Gambling would become illegal, because its, well gambling with your own money. Actually money that New-Left lets you keep.

The New-Left , Far-Left really in America, always say how much America should be more like Europe. Well they could start with that by being honest and accurate with how they label their own politics. And leave the words liberal and progressive for people who actually live up to the values of liberalism and progressivism. Liberals, believe in liberation, liberalization and liberty. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. That we should have a limited government to see that everyone can achieve those things for themselves. Not a big government to run their lives for them.

Progressives, similar as Liberals, but compare Franklin Roosevelt with Jack Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson with Jack Kennedy, which is probably a better comparison. Progressives, believe in individual freedom as well, but would have a bigger more centralized government than Liberals. To run the safety net, to use as an example. But not big enough to try to manage people’s lives for them. The New-Left, whether you want to call then Socialist, Statist, or Collectivist, believe in big government. The only God they really have is Karl Marx. That individuals don’t exist and people are members of the collective and should move and act together, not individually. And there’s nothing liberal about that. Not progressive either, because it doesn’t create progress.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald: This Is Not Your Parents' Caribbean

The National Interest: Opinion: Scott MacDonald: This Is Not Your Parents' Caribbean

There are a lot of opportunities and challenges in the Caribbean especially with Cuba coming back from the dead so to speak with its economy and having restarted diplomatic relations with America again. And will become heavy trading partners that will benefit both economies. Cuba, the largest island nation in the Caribbean will see a lot of money coming into their country as a result. Cuba, very similar to Florida as far as its physical beauty climate and tourist attractions. And culturally South Florida is very similar to Cuba. But with a much better economy and infrastructure system.

With Cuba on the move again, that could hurt struggling little Caribbean states that are already struggling economically and could do even worst in the future with more money and people going to Cuba. Which is the challenge for Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Dominican, Haiti, Bahamas and others. But with challenges tend to come with opportunities. The whole Caribbean region is an area of forty-five-million people roughly. But with the biggest country being Cuba with a eleven-million people. The Dominican, has around ten-million people. Maybe its time that these countries get together and restructure their debts and deficits and do what Europe did back in the 1940s and 1950s.

To look at a Caribbean Union, or some type of West Indie Alliance where they become one economic market. That everyone would want to trade and invest with. Because one Indie market would be a lot bigger and wealthier than fifteen, or so mostly very small states like the Bahamas and Barbados. As well as having a joint defense alliance and foreign policy coordinator and even law enforcement alliance. Because Cuba, is coming back and will be even stronger economically than they were pre-Fidel Castro and the Marxist Revolution there. And Cuba could become part of this West Indie Alliance as well. Especially if their human rights record improves and perhaps even lead the Alliance.

Monday, August 10, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion- Tom Nichols- No Other Choice: Why President Harry Truman Dropped The Atomic Bomb on Japan

Source: The National Interest-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I mostly agree with Tom Nichols about President Truman and the atomic bomb being dropped in Japan. The only thing I would differ on is that President Truman had no good choice. Continue the war and risk losing another hundred-thousand American soldiers in the Pacific, or drop the bomb in Japan and kill at least a million innocent Japanese. Who were guilty of nothing other than living in Japan during World War II. But the old cliche war is hell has never been more true than during this war. When you're the head of state in your country during wartime, your loyalty is to your own country. And that even means leading a war and ordering missions that can kill a lot of innocent people on the other side. Without the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan, how and when does that war end?

Japan, wasn't interested in preserving their own people. If anything America showed more mercy to the Japanese people then their own government. We didn't use the Japanese as targets and human shields. Japan, was only interested in saving their dictatorial regime. Not surrendering and risk being thrown out. Didn't matter to them how many of their people had to die to preserve their regime. Not that different with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the current Islamic State in Iran. So what President Truman and his National Security Council was left with was how to end a war against a country that refuses to surrender and stop fighting.

President Harry Truman, was President of the United States. And because of that was responsible for the lives and national security of the American people. Which included German-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans back then and today. America, fought both Germany and Japan back then. And had the Japanese Government been more interested in preserving the lives of their own people than their regime, the atomic bomb is never dropped. Because the war would've been over a long time before the bomb. Because Japan would've figured out the obvious. They were beat and losing thousands of their own people everyday and would've just lost more the longer the war went on. And that they couldn't beat the United States.
Critical Past: President Harry S. Truman Reads Prepared Speech After Dropping Atomic Bomb on Japan

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Liberty in Our Time: Anarchy U.S.A.: "In the Name of Civil Rights": Right-Wing Propaganda About The Civil Rights Movement

Liberty in Our Time: Anarchy U.S.A.: "In the Name of Civil Rights": Right-Wing Propaganda About The Civil Rights Movement

Of course there were demonstrations and rioting in America in the 1960s. But that is only part of the story. Why were civil rights marchers marching and why were African-Americans rioting in their ghettos? To get fresh air, no. Maybe some exercise, no. I know, they were bored with nothing else to do. But that would be wrong again. They were marching for freedom and to be noticed. This whole right-wing propagandist notion that America was the mountain of freedom up to this point and then it became some anarchist state during the 1960s during the Johnson Administration. Mountain of freedom for who? For some, sure! But if you’re complexion happened to be black, or brown, you mostly likely were not a free person in America during this time.

If your complexion was black and brown and you had African hair and other physical features, you might not have been able to even vote back then. Unless you could afford to pay the high poll tax. You could lose your job, or be denied a job simply because of your color and race. Liberal democracy is not easy and when you write a Constitution that says all men are created equal with all the same rights as everyone else, but then you say, you know what, we really don’t mean that. What our Founding Fathers meant to say what that all of that freedom and constitutional rights were only intended for Anglo-Saxon men whose ancestors come from Britain.” When you do something like that and simply deny people their rights that they are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution simply based on their race, there’s going to be a backlash against that.

What we saw in the 1960s, were African-Americans and others stand up and demand their rights. The same rights that Anglo-Saxons and other European-Americans are due under the U.S. Constitution. They they were tired of being denied things simply because of their complexion and race. They were tired of being given peanuts and living in projects, while the establishment got the rest of the loaf and pie to themselves and lived in beautiful homes in the suburbs living in a paradise that they created for themselves with help from people who live in the projects. Because they were only getting peanuts for the work that they put in. The civil rights movement wasn’t about destroying America, or freedom. But expanding those things to more Americans.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

U.S. Senator Bob Corker
The National Interest: Opinion: Albert Carnesale: Deal or No Deal: The Choice Before Congress

Albert Carnesale, in his National Interest piece, makes a good point about Congressional Republicans. And maybe the problem they’re having is that America unlike Europe and a lot of other places, does not have a true opposition leader and opposition leadership. One opposition leader and their leadership who represents the alternative to the administration in power. And when they disagree with the administration they can lay out exactly what they don’t like about administration policy and what they would do differently. What we have in America for the opposition party, is several different leaderships, but not one that can bring the whole party together. Which makes it difficult especially when the opposition party is already divided to begin with to pay out a clear alternative to administration policy.

Senate Marco Rubio and other Congressional Republicans say that there is a clear alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. But they’re essentially advocating for the status quo. Which is common with Conservatives. “Don’t rock the boat, keep things as are” and so-forth. They’re arguing for continuing the economic sanctions and basically preying that the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia and China do the same things. The problem is our partners in this deal which is why it’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action have already agreed to the deal and are going forward with it.

And part of that is sanctions relief for a failing Iranian economy. And Republicans, also argue just continue with the economic sanctions on Iran, while everyone else isn’t. The problem with that is the sanctions have already severely hurt the Iranian economy going back to 2005. And now even under all of that economic pressure are now closer to a nuclear weapon then they were ten years ago. Some Republicans say get a better deal. But what would be a better deal. The whole point of a deal and compromise is that you give up something in order to get something in return that you value more.

The definition of a deal, or compromise to Neoconservatives seems to be total surrender. Iran, gives up their nuclear weapons and we won’t invade them. Which is not something that Congressional Republicans are willing to do as far invading Iran right now and perhaps not even trying to hit Iran from the air. And obviously Iran wouldn’t agree to that. I mean if you make that offer to them, they would simply walk away. And to talk to people who know how to negotiate. Iran, will get real economic relief for their economy which they obviously need. But in exchange they’ll give up their nuclear weapons program, if they live up to their end. And if they don’t we’ll catch them if they try to cheat and they’ll pay a price for that as well.

So what Albert Carnesale said in his National Interest piece, “Deal or No Deal”, he’s right on point. Because this is the only deal that is on the table, or has even been offered. House Republicans, haven’t put any alternatives on the table. Senate Republicans, haven’t offered any alternatives either. None of the Republican presidential candidates even the ones with real foreign policy experience like Senator Lindsay Graham, has offered an alternative to the JCPA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So the JCPA, is the only deal on the table. If America walks, we walk alone while the UK, European Union, Russia and China move forward without us. And if this deal is fully implemented, they would get the credit for it.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The National Interest: Opinion-Matthew Del Santo- The Next Superpower: Is a United States of Europe Possible?

Euro Jet-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

To answer Matthew Del Santo’s question, yes. But it would depend on how a Federal Europe, Federal States of Europe, or whatever this new Euro State would be called, would look like. This idea that it would simply be an economic zone, but where the central authority lets say led by Germany, could veto other states budgets, simply won’t fly. That would be like a bird trying to take off without their wings. France, Italy, Spain, would never go along with that and you put their populations together and you’re talking about one-hundred and seventy-million people. With a GDP somewhere around six-trillion dollars, or Euros.

I believe if a European superstate, or a Federal Europe were to emerge, it would be exactly that. A Federal Europe with a federalist system and constitution. Where the states would maintain their own autonomy over their own domestic affairs. But where the federal government would come in to handle the currency, national security and foreign policy. As well as dealing with interstate crime and commerce. Each state would retain their welfare states, instead of having the federal government trying to manage a large welfare state, or safety net, from lets say Brussels, where the European Union capital is. A Federal States of Europe lets say, would look similar to the United States of America. As far as states in relation to the federal government.

I believe this would be the only way a Federal Europe could work. Because the leaders of these countries would have to sell this idea and new union to their people. About how it would benefit them, the economy, national security and foreign policy, to have a Federal State with a population of over three-hundred-million people who would now become economically, militarily, politically and perhaps even energy independent and emerge as the next democratic developed superpower in the world. As opposed of being part of a large country of eighty-million people, like Germany, or sixty-five-million like France, that is so dependent on other countries for their well-being like America. Instead this one united country would be able to take control over and manage their own affairs instead.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

KD: Video: CBS News See it Now: U.S. Senate Joseph McCarthy Responds to Edward R. Murrow

KD: Video: CBS News See it Now: U.S. Senate Joseph McCarthy Responds to Edward R. Murrow

For the life of me I wonder where Joe McCarthy got his information. Was it someone on his staff. Which is probably likely, but where would that person get their information. Or was it someone from an outside party outside of government. Perhaps a political activist group that was really anti-communist from the right-wing in America. I mean just the stuff, well perhaps that’s too nice. Maybe trash, that would be better, but still not strong enough and I think I know where I’m going here, but what he said about Ed Murrow and trying to link him with some communist group in Russia. I mean is this guy simply a big fat liar? Possible, I mean he was a sitting U.S. Senator. And we all know about all the hot hair in Congress. And not just from the Washington summers.

If Ted Cruz today, who also happens to be a U.S. Senator wants to know why he gets compared to Joe McCarthy, it is because of statements like this from McCarthy. Where you take one negative, or less than flattering piece about someone from the opposition and you try to make it look as negative as you possibly can get way with. You overly distort what someone said and take it way out of context. You take one line from one statement from one article, or one document and try to make it look like that is all that person said and that there’s nothing else to it. Which is what Senator McCarthy did with his whole guilt by association routine with his Government Oversight Committee.

The main problem with Joe McCarthy is that he represented exactly what he claimed to be against. Where he said all of these negative things about the Soviet Union and communism about the supremacy of the state. And that the individual it not important and all of this is true by the way. But the problem had been that he took the attitude that if you don’t believe him all the way and agree and approve of exactly everything he did with his speeches and investigation, he would accuse you of giving comfort to the enemy. Which is what he accused Ed Murrow of in 1954. Joe McCarthy, might have believed in the supremacy of the state over the individual. But believed in the supremacy of Joe McCarthy over the individual. You either with him all the way, or you’re against America and what it stands for.