CAP USA: 'The John Birch Society vs. The Communists'

Source:CAP USA- Robert Welch, founder of the JBS.

"(Circa 1965) John Birch Society founder Robert Welch lists the stark differences in operating principles between the JBS and the communists (now called Neocons and liberal Democrats)." 

From CAP USA 

Robert Welch, the founder of JBS, was one of the strongest opponents of Communists and leaders of the New-Right. (People who are strong opponents of Communists and pluralism) And in the early days of the Cold War (between the United States and Soviet Union) people who believed in freedom were freaking out about Communists and communism and not freaked out about it, but paranoid. There would be Communist sightings like there are Elvis Presley sightings today. People were supposedly finding Communists everywhere. 

Because of the national freak out about Communists and communism in America (what others call the Red Scare) the New-Right in America (Fascists and Communists) took advantage of that. 

The New-Right in Congress with people like Senator Joe McCarthy and his McCarthy hearings in the Senate, took advantage of that and attempted to locate every Communist in America, especially in the U.S. Government and bring them out of their Marxist closets. 

This is what Robert Welch and the John Birch Society represented back then, as well as today. They see pretty much everyone who is to the Left of them (including Conservatives and Libertarians) as potential Communists. 

Al Jazeera: 'Empire - The New Arms Race'

Source:Al Jazeera- Welcome to the Communist Republic of Korea. No one will blame you if you try to leave or escape.

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة‎, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], literally "The Island", though referring to the Arabian Peninsula in context)[3] is a state-owned[4] broadcaster based in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the internet and specialty television channels in multiple languages.

Al Jazeera Media Network is a global news organization with 80 bureaus around the world. The original Al Jazeera Arabic channel's willingness to broadcast dissenting views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. One of the station's office was the only channel to cover the War in Afghanistan live." 

From Wikipedia  

"Over the last decade, Washington has doubled its military budget, fuelling massive military build-ups around the world, from the emerging powers in the South China Seas to the multi-billion-dollar arms deals in the Middle East, begging the question where and when this vicious cycle of rising military expenditures will end. Empire asks: what justifies this global military addiction, or, has the world been duped by the multi-national, military industrial complex?"

From Al Jazeera

Does the People's Republic of China (which is the official name of China) I call it the Communist Republic of China (but perhaps thats a different debate) but do they want to be a superpower economically? Yeah, that I think thats obvious by the way they've developed their economy. 

The last thirty plus years or so, China has already created the largest economy in the Asia, the largest continent in the world. They passed Japan a few years ago, but Japan still dwarfs China in per-capita income, something like 5-7 times more. Which is actually more important when it comes to economics: the ability for people to spend money to have money to spend in order to support themselves and their families. Thats what per-capita Income is about and why its more important them the actual size of a GDP. 

The next step for China's economy, how do they translate economic growth into education and job growth that benefits most of the country instead of parts of it and become a developed nation. 

China is a country of 1.5B people and maybe 1/3 of them, which is still 500M people live in the middle class or could be considered wealthy. Does China want to become a military superpower? Again, they are a huge country of 1.5B people, they can already defend themselves quite well and are already an Asian power. As well as having one of the largest militaries in the world and having nuclear weapons. And they are still developing their military and perhaps will be a military superpower within 10-20 years. Fine, so what, it's not a matter if countries are powerful or not, with their military or economy. 

The question is what does China do with that power: India is also moving in this direction as well, they are a country of 1.2B people the second largest country in the world. But I don't believe many countries, except for maybe Pakistan which is another huge country of 150M people, but India dwarfs them in everything. Its about what you do with power not whether you have it or not and China has shown that they are not the Soviet Union, they don't want to own Asia or the world. Unlike Russia that wanted to spread communism around the World. 

America doesn't need to worry about China in the sense that China will own the world or something. If America does what it has to do, which is rebuild our economy, economic and job growth, fixing our fiscal policy by actually having one and getting our debt and deficit under control, exporting our products around the world and having the same trade access in foreign nations that they have in America, with the same low tariff rates, rebuilding and expanding our infrastructure and bringing it into the 21st Century, having an energy policy that moves America towards energy independence, reforming our public education System, etc, then America will again not just be the superpower, but the dominant power in the world.

America has a lot of work to do and we have some time to do it and if we get our work done. We'll still be as powerful as we need to be to address all of our concerns because we'll have the resources to do them. And China will still be China but they won't be America, they'll never be anything like America as far as how great and important as we are, as long as we do what we need to do and China is still a Communist Republic with very limited if any social and political freedom. 

It's not about having power thats the problem, it's about what you do with the power you have. And so far China even though they've done some things we've disagree with like with Taiwan and how they deal with their ethnic and religious minorities, but this is not the Soviet Union thats trying to establish a Communist State for the world. And if America does what America needs to do, then the rest will be taken care of for the better.

The Northwest Report: 'The One Who Stood With Ronald Reagan'

Source:The Northwest Report- Governor Ronald Reagan (Republican, California) and Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Ron Paul 2012 Ad: The One Who Stood with Reagan (New TV Ad "Trust") from Ron Paul." 

From The Northwest Report

I'm not sure a Libertarian running for President should be trying to make himself look like a President, who expanded the War on Drugs and War on Crime. Even though we saw an explosion in heroin and cocaine in the 1980s, as well as a President who expanded what Libertarians and Socialists like the call, The Military Industrial Complex. As well as The Prison Industrial Complex. And you could probably add the narcotics industrial complex. With all of the people in the 1980s going to jail in prison for drug use and possession. 

This TV ad is clearly about reaching out to Conservative-Republicans (the ones that remain in the party) in a party that's now dominated by Neoconservatives and Tea Party Nationalists, the Christian-Right, who obviously don't like Representative Paul, because he's a Libertarian and not a Neoconservative or theocrat. 

Ron Paul is obviously not theocratic and Tea Party members that don't like Paul's libertarian views on social issues. And Representative Paul clearly has to break through with one of those groups of Republican voters, who are all leaning towards Rick Perry.

For Ron Paul to have any shot in hell of winning the Republican nomination for President, which I don't believe he has much of one and his best bet is to target parts of the Tea Party that haven't gotten in bed yet with the Religious-Right, to have any shot at winning the Republican nomination and this Ronald Reagan ad is an attempt to do that. 

Paul needs parts of the Tea Party (the conservative-libertarian wing if it) but the problem that will come with it, is that it could cost him some libertarian votes. Votes again that Ron Paul has to have to win the nomination. And Libertarians aren't fans of President Reagan because of President Reagan's increase defense spending, debt and deficit spending, and War on Drugs. 

This is the main problem that Ron Paul has running for President in today's Republican Party and why he won't win the nomination. He has to keep the Libertarians and pick away at least one more faction of the Republican Party without losing Libertarians. I believe his best bet is the few Conservative-Libertarians that remain in the Republican Party, but they alone won't get him the nomination.

Besides attacking Governor Rick Perry right now who is very popular in the Republican Party is not a smart play. The more people including Republicans find out about him as this election cycle moves on, the more they won't like him or see him as unelectable. 

The fact that Rick Perry used to be a Democrat who endorsed Liberal Democratic Senator Al Gore for President back in 1988, will be a big enough problem for him. Or that he suggested that Texas should succeed from the Union or called Social Security unconstitutional, a program thats very popular in the Republican Party. The mountain of debt and deficits that Governor Perry has piled up in Texas, 2nd only to California and this a man who is running as a fiscal conservative. Republicans will understand these issues very well in the next few months and they'll come out. 

It's a little early for Representative Paul to be attacking Governor Perry, especially by comparing himself with Ron Reagan. Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States I'l just flatly say that right now and I'm taking a leap or anything. Those are the facts and I think he knows that as well. He's a man without a major political party that can get him nominated and then elected President of the United States. I believe his whole presidential campaign is about advancing the Libertarian movement which he's succeeding at.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- 'The Social Security Myth'

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about Social Security.

"Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand.  In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today's health care debate. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If you look at it, Social Security in some senses is a myth and perhaps has the wrong title and I'm not saying this as someone who is against Social Security: I do believe that we as a country should have some floor of standard of living that people can count on, but Social Security itself is only as secure as the Federal Government allows it to be by how they managed it. Which is a big problem right there, we have to rely on them not to waste the taxes that we pay into it on other government spending, as well as reforming it before it goes bankrupt.

There's no such thing as a Social Security lock box: that sure as hell is a myth. Which is a term that came about during the Bush-Gore presidential election of 2000. Perhaps what we should call Social Security instead, is Basic Living or Pension Insurance, because thats basically what it is. 

Social Security is not a pension program, but a pension insurance program, money that people can collect to go along with whatever pension they may have. Because a lot of people don't have a big enough pension to support themselves as senior citizens.

Another big problem with Social Security is we don't save enough as people and lot of us don't make enough money to save, which is another problem in our economy. 

The success of Social Security is that its lift millions of senior citizens out of poverty, people who otherwise would've had to live with their kids. Or would've been at the mercy of private charity and provided these people with some basic standard of living that they could count on. If the Federal Government doesn't screw it up in their senior years.

What I would like to do with Social Security and our broader pension system after we fix the financing of it, is to give more Americans freedom of choice in how they finance their own retirement income. Something that former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle calls Social Security Plus, that would be and add on to their Social Security. Where workers along with their employers would put money away in a personal retirement account that would be tax free. As long as they are putting money in the account. This would literally mean increasing payroll taxes at around 50% to be able to finance it in a way to make it worth doing.

So we would need to cut taxes somewhere else in order to avoid a huge middle class tax hike. But I would be for that as well and then set up a system for low-income workers as well, where they could get their money that they put in their PRA. Back in a tax credit so they could afford to put money away for their retirement as well. 

But I would go farther with Social Security as I mentioned in previous pieces and take Social Security off of the backs of the Federal Government. And get the Administration's and Congress's hands off of it and out of it, to finance their own pet projects. And turn it over the states to run their own Social Security program.

Social Security is a myth in the sense that it's not completely secure, only intended to be and only as secure as the Federal Government allows it to be. Which is a problem in itself, when they take money out of it thats supposed to be their for people when they retire. To finance their other pet projects.

Sidewinder: Walter E. Williams- 'Good Intentions: The Welfare System and Conclusions'

Source:Sidewinder- from Walter E. Williams 1982 PBS documentary.

"Walter Williams' PBS documentary Good Intentions based on his book, The State Against Blacks (1982). The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder... 

From Sidewinder

As a Liberal I believe one of government's jobs is to help the people who can't take care of themselves, because one of government's roles is to look after the welfare of its citizens. Not to take care of the people who are physically and mentally able of taking care of themselves or running their lives, but to help them, empower them to be able to take care of themselves. 

I'm a Liberal, not a socialist (liberal democracy vs social democracy) I don't believe government's job is to take care of people who are able to be self-sufficient, but to help the physically and mentally able people who can take care of themselves. And our disabled population can live on Disability Insurance where a lot of them are able to and do work part time. 

Where our Welfare system has failed is that it's assumed that people who are poor and low-skilled or who are single parents, automatically aren't able to take care of themselves and did nothing to break the cycle of poverty. And this happens by people making good decisions in their own lives, not having kids too early and not abandoning their kids (fathers and mothers) but sticking around and raising their own kids. (Fathers and mothers) 

We have too many fathers abandoning their kids especially in the low-income communities and this has been a major contributor to poverty in America. And their kids are left with their mothers who are low- skilled and unable to take care of their kids on their own. So they end up on Welfare Insurance or their kids end up in foster homes or being adopted because their mothers aren't able to take care of them. 

So what we have to do as a country is to break the single-parent cycle in poverty and to encourage both fathers and mothers to stay and raise their kids. 

And one way to do this is to reform Welfare Insurance by not just having it for single parents, but allow both parents to go on it who don't have the skills to take care of themselves and allow both parents to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient: be able to get things like education and other life skills while receiving temporary financial assistance.,to move people off of Welfare Insurance. 

There are a couple of ways to do this: one and not a very popular way and a way I would describe as mean is simply to kick people off of Welfare Insurance and end the program even if they haven't even broken and rules or laws. 

Another way which is much more practical and I believe popular is to empower these people to get the skills that they need in order to get themselves off of poverty and gets to temporary financial assistance: things like child care, Medicaid, Public Housing, Food Stamps, but this assistance only helps sustain them while they are collecting Welfare Insurance, to actually move them off of Welfare Insurance so they can become self-sufficient. 

Reforming Welfare and making our public assistance system work, gets to things like education, empowering them to go back to school and getting their high school diploma or GED. And then going to community college, so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good enough job that allows them to support themselves and their families so they are self-sufficient. 

The reason why our public assistance system has failed so long up until the 1996 Welfare to Work Law, was because it was badly designed. (To state the obvious) It allowed generations of people to get trapped in the cycle of poverty and created a culture of dependency. What we should've been doing instead is creating a culture of self-sufficiency where people who are on Welfare Insurance are empowered to get themselves off of public assistance.

Reason Magazine: Michael Moynihan- Interviewing Tom G. Palmer: 'Realizing Freedom'

Source:Reason Magazine- Tom G. Palmer, talking about his book Realizing Freedom.

"Last month, Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan talked with Tom G. Palmer, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and vice president of international relations at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, about his latest book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice, why we are living in the freest time in human history, and the necessity of libertarian compromise." 

From Reason Magazine 

What I respect about libertarianism as a Liberal is their belief in limited government, which actually means small government to Libertarians. Whether they put it that way or not) Libertarians idea of limited government would probably like 1/6 of the current Federal Government. They would probably only keep the White House (obviously, duh!) Defense, State, Justice, Treasury, and maybe Commerce and the CIA, and Congress, and the Judicial Branch in the Federal Government. 

What I also respect about libertarianism is of course their belief in individual freedom as well as what Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman called maximize freedom: the freedom for people to live their own lives as they see fit (adults, that is) as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

A libertarian, as well as classical liberal idea of the free society would be a society where there would be decriminalization or marijuana, prostitution, organized gambling. (To use as examples) The idea that people should be able to do these things if they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else. And the fact that people do these things anyway, we might as well accept these facts and try to make these activities as safe as possible. Instead of them being done in the black market with no rules and no one paying taxes while doing these things. 

My issues with libertarianism as a Liberal, are personal as well as politically: they are so rigid and consistent and I would even argue stubborn politically, that if you don't take the libertarian position on everything for the most part, you are not one of them and you are basically a traitor to the movement. You are some type of Big Government Socialist or Communist or something even if you might only disagree with libertarianism on a few issues. Which I believe has hurt not only the Libertarian Party in drawing more members but the broader Libertarian movement which is much broader than the LP. Which points out a weakness in the LP, with its inability to draw more members.

If the Libertarian movement wasn't so rigid ideologically and basically took the stance that as long as you support the broader movement and you are with them lets say 90% of the time, which the Democratic and Republican Party's generally would accept as a good percentage at least historically, then you would see more Liberals and Conservatives become libertarians and we wouldn't have terms like Classical Libertarian (the rigid Libertarians) Conservative-Libertarians, and Liberal-Libertarians (Such as myself) Notice how liberal and libertarian sound so much alike. 

Yet in today's politics Liberals get mistaken for Socialists or so-called Progressives but thats a different post. I'll give you a few examples: social issues, the libertarian way of thinking is the way to go as far as I'm concern and a lot of other Americans feel the same way, we don't as a country like to be told as a country how to live our lives. Which is why more Libertarians haven't become Republicans because they don't like the Religious-Right. 

But a consensus of Americans do like things like Social Security and Medicare which has hurt the Libertarian movement in the past. When Libertarians have called for the elimination of these programs, so what I'm suggesting is that they moderate their views. (To use as an example) Say they accept that these programs are here and people depend on them which is why we are not going to eliminate them, but they would like to decentralize them and even bring competition to them. Then I believe Libertarians would have a lot more success politically.

I'm a Liberal because I do believe in individual freedom and maximize freedom but again this is what separates me from libertarianism. Because I believe in those things as long as people aren't hurting anyone else with their freedom. And thats where government comes in to protect innocent free people from the harm of people who would take that freedom away and then punish them. Whereas I believe Libertarians are anti-government to the point that I believe some of them don't even want government doing that. And this is another thing thats cost Libertarians politically.

Ron Paul: 'Socialism in a Libertarian Society vs Libertarianism in a Socialist Society'

Source:A Star Spangeled Girl- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking about libertarianism vs socialism.

"In a Student Town Hall on 9/25/09 sponsored by the Young Americans forLiberty, Ron Paul stresses that in a libertarian society, socialists would have the right to voluntarily live in their own socialist societies. Of course, any individual who chooses to do so must also have the right to opt OUT of living in a socialist society."

 
From A Star Spangled Girl

One of things I respect both about libertarianism and socialism is the diversity in both political Ideologies: a casual looker at both ideologies might think that are complete opposites. Or terms like Socialist Libertarian is contradictory in terms: Libertarians believe in complete individual liberty. They believe we should let free people live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as keeping most of the money that they earn. 

And Socialists believe in collectivism: "don't let anyone make too much money, spread the wealth." And do these things through high taxes and through government providing a lot of services. Instead of giving the people the freedom to do these things for themselves and if they do it better than others, so be it as Libertarians tend to believe. 

Socialists at least in the social-democratic sense, tend to be liberal-libertarian on social issues: take Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader (to use as examples) except for maybe gun rights, organized gambling and hate speech in America. What I'm getting at the Ron Paul's of the world aren't the only faces of libertarianism and the Fidel Castro's of the world aren't the only faces of socialism. 

There's classical-libertarianism, the Ron Paul's, there's conservative-libertarianism, the Barry Goldwater's, there's liberal Libertarianism where I would fit in as well as people like  and then there's socialist- libertarianism the Dennis Kucinich's of the world. Who believe that people should have the right to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. But want to see more government intervention especially from the Federal Government in the economy. And believe the Federal Government should try to bring about what they call economic justice to society, trying to make society equal for all. And not letting anyone by force have too much more than others.

Marijuana is a perfect example of this at least in America, where Libertarians, Liberals such as myself, Socialists and Conservatives (to a certain extent) like the late Bill Buckley, who are in favor of decriminalization or marijuana and treating it like alcohol and tobacco have it fall under the same regulations and taxes. 

These four different factions of libertarianism all believe in individual liberty, we tend to differ on the U.S. Constitution, property rights being a perfect example of this where Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives all believe in property rights. Where Socialists don't tend to be a big fan of property rights and believe that government can force private business's to become public utilities for the good of the country (in their view) banking being an excellent example of this when our banking system looked like it was collapsing back in 2008.

Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives and even Socialists as hard as that might be to believe all believe in limited government at least to a certain extent, but we all differ in how limited government should be. Especially when it comes to the economy where Socialists don't believe in limited government as much as Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians.