Rick Cooley: ‘No Nukes’- Only Through Multi-Lateral Disarmament

Posted on August 4, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Source: Rick Cooley: ‘No Nukes’

Before we talk about eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth, which I would go along with as long as it’s not just the United States that does that, but everyone else involved who currently has nuclear weapons, or is trying to develop them, lets first lay out who currently has nuclear weapons. This should be very helpful for people who are lets says a bit left of center and not quite center-left in America. Social Democrats who tend to be against the use of force, well for anything at least as it relates to governmental policy.

America, Britain, France, Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, all currently not just have nuclear power, but own nuclear weapons. Brazil, Japan and South Korea, have considered getting nuclear weapons. Iran, would like to have them. Libya, Iraq and South Africa, gave them up, or they were taken away from them. Two of the countries that are on the current nuclear weapons list are social democracies and tend to be a bit left of center politically than the United States. Britain and France.

Yes Britain and France that are two of most social democratic countries in the world when it comes to their form of government and economic systems. And yet they both use nuclear power for their energy needs and for their national security. Nuclear power, something that Social Democrats at least in America, are not fans of to say the least and would want to see outlawed in this country. See, most countries at least in the developed world, tend to look at foreign affairs and national security from a real-world perspective. It’s great to live in Utopia and be govern by idealism on Fantasy Island. But when you live in the real-world where most of the rest of us live, you have to do what it takes to defend yourself from the worst possible threats.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power, at least from democratic oriented countries are not intended to destroy other countries and kill people. And people can throw Japan and the nuclear bomb being dropped by America there all that they want. But the facts are we did that to end that war. To prevent a hundred-thousand America soldiers from being murdered in the next battle there. And whoever coined the phrase war is hell, sure as hell knew what they were talking about and probably experienced some of that hell for them self. What that means is that in war sometimes you have to do things that come with horrible consequences to prevent worst things from happening. Like your own people being killed.

Nuclear weapons, again when they are possessed by democratic countries are designed for self-defense. But more importantly they are designed for preëmptive defense. “You don’t want to hit us, because we can blow you away if you do.” Again America, hit Japan with the bomb in World War II, but no other power with nuclear weapons has used them since. Because no one has been dumb, or crazy enough to call that play yet, because they know what will happen in response. When all the other nuclear powers come to the table and say, “we’re ready to give up our nuclear weapons and we’ll stop making them if you do the same.” Then the United States will be ready to do the same thing. As we should, because of horrible consequences that come from using nuclear weapons.
Secular Talk: Deal- No Nukes For Iran & Regular Inspections

Posted in Foreign Affairs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

Posted on August 4, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Euro Jet?

Source:The National Interest– A Euro Jet?

“Four days ago, French President François Hollande declared his in-principle commitment to the creation of a “euro government, with the addition of a specific budget and a parliament to ensure democratic control.”

From The National Interest

“David Aaronovitch, Gillian Tett and Andrew Marr discuss the Sunday Times ‘United States of Europe’ editorial from May 2012.
Like newspapers:Leading Articles.”

Sunday Times 'United States of Europe' editorial argument

Source:Leading Articles– talking about a potential Federal Europe.

From Leading Articles

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.

Posted in Europe | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Steve Chapman: Planned Parenthood & Our Abortion Choices

Posted on August 3, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Abortion

What is very typical in Washington especially in Congress is that when something controversial happens that puts one party on the defensive like the Planned Parenthood videos, the other party especially if they have power in Congress not just rushes to judgment, but rushes to action. The Republican controlled House of Representatives, votes to defund Planned Parenthood and the Republican controlled Senate, takes it up today with Senate Democrats voting to block it on a strict party-line vote. With not a single Democrat, or Republican voting with the other side. Which I would think would leave people who prefer just to observe Washington and look at things objectively asking the question, “what was this for and what was the point? Didn’t Senate Republicans know they didn’t have the votes going in and that not one Democrat would vote with them?”

With all the other issues that Congress could be addressing right and since they are so addicted to vacation and go out of their ways to get out of Washington and bash this city, even though all of them seem to be addicted to having jobs here especially since they don’t have to be in town and work much, you would think they would find more useful things to do with the taxpayers time. Then to work on issues where neither party has the power to get what they want and doesn’t want to compromise. And this other idea that Congressional Republicans seem to be considering about shutting down the Federal Government if Democrats and President don’t agree to defund Planned Parenthood, is even dumber. And just adds to the dysfunction in Congress and Washington as a whole. That Washington isn’t about governing, but trying to score partisan political points.

The whole Planned Parenthood debate, if you don’t like abortion here and believe taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion, that is not what Planned Parenthood does. With taxpayer funds, even though I’m sure they would love to provide those services. They are in the business of women’s health care and empowering women to decide when and how they get pregnant and allowing for women to make these decisions for themselves. Even if they have sex lives and do those things with men. What the pro-life community and the broader Traditional Values Coalition doesn’t seem to understand that is abortion and the right to choose when it comes to abortion is not only here, but it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. The next President, mostly likely will be a Democrat and be able to replace the two aging Liberal Justice’s on the Supreme Court with young middle-age Liberals. And then after that the next Justice’s will all be replacing the elderly Conservatives on the Court.

So if I’m facing this reality as a pro-lifer, or lets say someone whose anti-abortion, or an anti-abortionist which is more accurate, knowing the route of a constitutional amendment and the current and most likely future power structure in Washington, I’m looking past Congress and the White House. And looking at political campaigns and treating abortion like the way the anti-tobacco advocates treated tobacco in the 1990s. To use pop culture terminology, to make abortion seem uncool and put out all the facts about it and not distort information about abortion, but to put real information about abortion out there and to let American women know that you don’t have to get an abortion. That there are other alternatives like adoption out there. Which is what some people in the anti-abortion community are already doing and as a result we’re seeing record lows for abortion in America now.

The right to choose whether its abortion, or any other personal choice, or personal freedom issue, is exactly that. The right for an individual, in this case women to make a decision for themselves. Instead of big government trying to do that for them. Personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. So if a women decides to have an abortion she’s financially and personally obligated to deal with it. So no taxpayer funds for abortion, other than to save the life and health of the mother. But it gives people who are anti-abortion completely, to put out information to potential mothers about the consequences of abortion, as well as the alternatives to it. Instead of trying to get big government and Uncle Sam to put his big fat bloated foot down and say, hell no!

Source:The New Democrat 

Posted in Reason, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keith Hughes: Video: Roe vs Wade Explained: US History Review

Posted on August 3, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Roe Vs Wade
Keith Hughes: Video: Roe vs Wade Explained: US History Review

Roe V Wade, is one of the most important decisions ever decided in the United States when it comes to women’s health and individual liberty really for everyone in the country both female and male. Because it is about when can the state regardless of governmental level can come in and tell someone, “no. You can’t do that to yourself, or for yourself. Government knows best over the individual.”

Whether you’re pro-choice, or pro-life I believe people make that decision based on when they believe life starts. With Christians, especially fundamentalists Christians, life begins at conception. “Once a women is pregnant, she is now carrying life and because of that she’s carrying someone who should be protected as much as anyone who has been born.” According to Catholics and other Christians. If you’re pro-choice, again regardless of what your religious affiliation may be, or if you’re Atheist, or Agnostic, life begins for you when the fetus is already born. And once the fetus is born then its a baby that deserves the same human rights including the right to life as everyone else who has been born.

That is really what the abortion debate is about. When does life start and again depending on when you believe life starts will determine your position on abortion. Now for me as an Agnostic, I guess I have a little more freedom to make my own decision and take my own position here. Because I’m not constrained by religious affiliations and beliefs. Wasn’t raised in a Catholic, Protestant, or any other religious family. So for me it becomes and individual liberty and role of government issue. Not a religious issue and it comes down for me who gets to decide in this case. And whether government and others can, or not force people who don’t share their religious to live by them on one of the most important decisions that a women will ever make.

As a Liberal, I’m pro-choice on practically everything short of someone hurting another innocent person. And if you want to call abortion hurting an innocent person by murdering an innocent baby, I can’t stop, but I also don’t have to listen to you either. I’m 98-99% pro-choice on abortion. The 1-2% on this very key issues comes down to public financing of abortions which I’m against. I agree with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on this issue for the most part. That government should be completely out of abortion. But then he says government, meaning taxpayers should pay for abortions and not just when the life, or health of the mother is involved. So he contradicts himself there and speaks out of two mouths, which is actually common in Congress. But I take Senator Murphy’s words on abortion literally as far as government shouldn’t be involved in abortion period. Short of making sure they are safe for women to have them. But they, meaning taxpayers don’t have to pay for them.

As a Liberal, pro-choice is exactly that. The right for the individual to decide for them self what is best for them when it comes to their own life. Doesn’t give them the right to make decisions for other people like intentionally to take their own life even not in self-defense. Or intentionally hurting another person. And abortion similar to a whole host of issues that also have something to do with privacy and personal freedom comes down to this question. Who gets to decide? The government, or the individual when it comes to a women’s productive rights including when she should give birth, or not. For me since life doesn’t begin at conception, but when the fetus actually becomes a baby and is born that is when their right to life begins. And when they get the same right to life as someone who is in their forties, or whatever their age may be. Government, except when it comes to making sure abortions as safe as possible, should be completely out it. Even funding abortions, except to save the life and health of the mother.

Posted in Keith Hughes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jim Morrison: The Bad Boy of Classic Rock

Posted on August 1, 2015 by Derik Schneider
The Lizard King

Source:The New Democrat– The Lizard King Jim Morrison.

“Flashback Friday, this week brings the story of famous American singer and poet James Douglas ‘Jim’ Morrison. Known widely as the lead vocalist of psychedelic rock band ‘The Doors’, Jim was a charismatic singer and regarded as the most iconic figures of popular rock music history. He is remembered today for his outrageous stage performances and rebellious lifestyle other than his unforgettable songs and lyrics.

Jim Morrison was born on December 8, 1949 in Melbourne, Florida. Jim was a dutiful and intelligent child, a voracious reader and a passionate diarist. Morrison joined University of California at Los Angeles after graduating from high school to study film. It was here at UCLA that he developed an avid interest in poetry.

Ray Manzarek, a former classmate from UCLA and Jim came with an idea of putting together a band for which they recruited Robbie Krieger as the guitarist and John Densomore as the drummer and began calling themselves ‘The Doors’. Elektra Records signed the Doors in 1966-67 for a recording contract. After the modest success of their first single, “Break on Through” it was their second single, “Light My Fire,” which catapulted the band to the forefront of the rock and roll world, reaching No. 1 on music charts. The group became known for its charismatic stage personality and its hypnotic music and Jim gained a reputation for erratic public behaviour.

In a small but inspiring journey, Jim Morrison led a bohemian life and remained infamous for alcohol dependency, drug use, violent temper and infidelity which led him into many troubles and life long depression.

In an attempt to get his life back in order, he took time off The Doors and moved to Paris where he departed at the age of 27, on July 3 1971, allegedly due to heroine overdose. His early death deprived the world of beautiful music and poetry. However, the most legendary and mysterious rockstar of all time, Jim Morrison continues to inspire many disaffected people around the world, who in his words find the expression of their hopes and frustration!

His legacy and popularity can be best testified in the fact that his grave located at Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris is one of the world’s most visited resting place to this day.”

From Fame Music

Jim Morrison aka The Lizard King, is the bad boy and frontman of classic rock and blues rock.

I’m not interested in heavy metal and punk rock, where I’m sure you’ll find guys who got into more trouble and perhaps had even bigger addiction problems. Curt Cobain and Axel Rose come to mind damn fast for me.

But, the heavy reliance and influence of black leather that you saw at least in the 1980s and 1990s especially with the leather jeans, boots, jackets, came from Jim Morrison. Which just to my point about how big a deal The Lizard King is when it comes to rock and roll and not just classic rock and blues rock where he made his biggest impact. But again heavy metal when you’re talking about wardrobe with the leather jeans, boots and jackets. That Jim Morrison made a staple of his wardrobe in the late 1960s, when almost no one else outside biker culture was wearing at all.

I don’t know of a frontman that meant more to his band than Jim Morrison. Not to take anything away from Ray Manzarek especially, who was great on the keyboards and also had a great singing voice. And Robby Krieger was an excellent guitarist and John Densmore could play the drums.

But The Doors are famous because of Jim Morrison, but Morrison wouldn’t have needed The Doors at least the group that was put together to be famous and successful. How many other rock frontman at least from that generation, had the intelligence, the wit, the writing ability and then throw in the style that The Lizard King had.

In an era where frontman looked somewhat preppy except for the long hair and looked like hippies, I mean we are talking about the late 1960s after all, Jim Morrison is wearing a black leather suit, skin-tight black leather jeans, that would be called skinny leathers today. With a black leather suit jacket, an Indian concho belt and black suede and leather boots.

Jim Morrison not just put leather jeans on the map in rock and roll, but leather period. To the point that Elvis Presley starts wearing a black leather suit in the late 60s and early 70s. John Kay, from Steppenwolf has his own Lizard King outfit. With a leather vest, black leather jeans and an Indian belt.

The hard rockers of the 1980s Kiss, Motley Crew, Guns N Roses, as well as heavy metal bands like Skid Row, are all wearing leather jackets and leather jeans. But much more casually than Jim Morrison and wore biker jackets and t-shirts with their leathers.

Morrison, again was a rebel and did his own thing and did it so well that he made it so cool and had others following him. To the point that there are countless Doors cover bands and Jim Morrison covers. With the Jim Morrison figure always in his black leathers and concho belt and at times with the black leather jacket.

But with The Lizard King, it’s not just his leather rock and roll fashion. And the fact that perhaps no other man has ever wore a black leather suit better. Or the fact that thousands of women went to Doors concerts to check the man out every night and to see what he would do on the stage next. But it was also his music and the fact that he and The Doors did their own thing and made their own music and to a certain extent sung about the times the 1960s, but did it their own way.

Morrison, especially didn’t want to fit in some place, but instead create his own place that was even different from his own band members from again how he carried and presented himself on stage. And then see if others would follow him.

The Baby Boom Generation, the 1960s rockers who made it big in that decade, lost three great stars. Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. But I’m not sure as great as Jimi and Janis would’ve been even combined would’ve they’ve meant more to rock and roll than Jim Morrison. The Lizard King was one in a kind and great at simply being himself as an entertainer. And we haven’t seen anyone as good, or similar since.

Posted in Jim Morrison, The Lizard King, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher: Monica Lewinski (1998)

Posted on August 1, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Politically Incorrect

Politically Incorrect


Shocker! A 1998 political talk show covering the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair. Gee, I guess there was nothing else going in the world. Similar to 1995 with the O.J. Simpson trial. As far as David Brock, I guess he was a closeted left-wing Socialist, as well as a gay man. Pretending to be a far-rightist who wanted to put America in a time machine and take us back to 1955. Perhaps even 1915 before American women had the right to vote. Well, Brock was a closeted homosexual until 1998 when I guess someone on the Right outed him. And now he’s head of a far-left media group called Media Matters. That seems to be in the business of trying to put right-wing media out of business.

But there’s one thing I sort of feel sympathy for David Brock. Being a closeted gay man and Socialist, pretending to be a right-winger on the Right in America. Having to pretend you love women, cars, sports, American capitalism in front of a group of people who think that gays should either be deported, or put in prison. Of course, he could’ve always moved to Canada where he would’ve fit in perfectly. And perhaps not even have to listen to, or hear any right-wing media whatsoever. Wait! Canadians, watch, read and listen to American media all the time. Perhaps because their media is so boring and has so little to report. I mean Canada, a country physically the size of a continent, but with only thirty-five million people. Because there’s year round arctic winter in half of the country.

One more thing about the Bill Clinton White House intern blow job scandal. I’ll give credit to anyone who can tell the difference between the group in America that tried to eliminate one way or another Bill Clinton from the presidency, from the Far-Right in the Tea Party that has tried to do the same thing to Barack Obama 10-15 soon to be twenty-years later. Wait! I have it. The difference is that the people who tried to kick Barry out of office are about 15-20 years older than the people who tried to kick Wild Bill out of office. Same crew, but with just more gray hair and resources to work with in the areas of the internet and social media.

Posted in Originals, Real Time | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

Posted on August 1, 2015 by Rik Schneider
McCarthyism

McCarthyism

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.

Posted in Classic News, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (1952)

Posted on August 1, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Liberal Democrat

Source:Public Resource– U.S. Representative John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) on The Longines Chronoscope, in 1952. He was in the House but running for the Senate, against Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

“LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH REP. JOHN F. KENNEDY – National Archives and Records Administration 1952-08-22 – ARC Identifier 95777 / Local Identifier LW-LW-132 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Harold Levine talk with Rep. John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) on senatorial campaign between him and Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Republican, Massachusetts). DVD copied by IASL Master Scanner Katie Filbert.”

From Public Resource

John F. Kennedy, at this point was Representative John F. Kennedy who was completing his third and last term in the House of Representatives. And was running for Senate against a moderate-conservative Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

Jack Kennedy, was only thirty-five at this point and would become one of the youngest people ever elected to the U.S. Senate at thirty-five. JFK, served a total of fourteen-years in Congress (both in the House and Senate) and yet he was forty-three when he left Congress for the presidency in 1961. He is someone who wanted to move up quickly in American politics and not stay in one office for very long.

The House, was too small of a platform especially if your last name is Kennedy. So it’s a little hard to believe that JFK would’ve been someone who would’ve spent 20-30 years in the House even if it meant being Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or serving in the Democratic Leadership.

I think JFK like his brother Ted, would’ve made a terrific U.S. Senator if he wanted it and served four, or five terms in the Senate after the House and completed his Congressional service and even public service in the Senate. And perhaps would’ve ended up chairing a couple of committees and maybe even becoming Democratic Leader in the Senate.

Jack Kennedy, didn’t have a very good record in the House. He was bored there and had a hard time dealing with being one of 435 Representatives there and a back bencher at that. And wasn’t a very serious Representative who missed a lot of floor votes and committee hearings and not known for passing any legislation.

JFK wasn’t much better as a Senator at least in his first term. But he writes a book Profiles in Courage in 1956, he marries Jacqueline Kennedy and his name is always in the news and starts to draw a serious following in the Democratic Party and becomes serious as a U.S. Senator. Which is how his name starts to get floated around as a possible presidential candidate. Who almost becomes Adlai Stevenson’s vice presidential nominee in 1956. And after that he when he puts most of his focus into becoming President of the United States.

Posted in JFK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Grit-TV: Richard Wolff- Bernie Sanders and Socialism

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Derik Schneider

 

Richard Wolff

Democratic Socialist

I guess I look at socialism like I look at conservatism. Not that they are similar, but that both have two competing factions in them. With conservatism, you have Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians and you have Libertarians. And lets leave the Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives out of this for the purpose of this piece. And with socialism, you have the Marxists, who are way out in left field. And is an ideology that has almost no power in the world now. And then you have the Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who not just believe in socialism and a democratic form of it, but believe that for socialism to be as effective as possible, you must have a sufficient private sector and private enterprise. To generate the revenue needed for the socialist state to thrive.

And Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters and before him lets say George McGovern in the 1970s, Norman Thomas in the 1960s, Henry Wallace in the 1950s and 1940s, all of these men are Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats. People who are very democratic in nature and even believe in a level of both personal and economic freedom, but who believed that you needed a welfare state-run by government to see to it that no one was left behind. That everyone was taken care, that there was a social insurance system for people who go through tough times in the private enterprise economy. And to take care of people who are disabled and who simply can’t work at all.

In a democratic socialist system, you would have some industries that are nationalized as well. In the areas that Socialists believe everyone needs to have and be able to use at an affordable rate. Things like health care, education, health insurance, pension, energy, banking to use as examples. But by in the large the economy would be in private hands. People would not just own their own personal property, but could start their own business and run their business. You would even see large private business’s. Including automakers, telecommunications, media, manufacturing, all small and local business’s. But they would all be subjected to high taxes and regulations to see that no one has to go without. These being the differences between socialism and statism.

.

Democratic Socialist

Democratic Socialist

Posted in Laura Flanders, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Federalist: ‘Remember The Moral Majority? Russell Moore Says It’s Over’

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Rik Schneider

B&H Publishing Group“At this moment, the next Saint Augustine may be marching at the head of a Gay Pride Day parade and the future Mother Teresa might be operating a Planned Parenthood clinic. It’s for this reason that Dr. Russell Moore encourages Christians to see their political opponents not as enemies but “as future brothers and sisters.”

From The Federalist

“As the culture changes all around us, it is no longer possible to pretend that we are a Moral Majority. That may be bad news for America, but it can be good news for the church. What’s needed now, in shifting times, is neither a doubling-down on the status quo nor a pullback into isolation. Instead, we need a church that speaks to social and political issues with a bigger vision in mind: that of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christianity seems increasingly strange, and even subversive, to our culture, we have the opportunity to reclaim the freakishness of the gospel, which is what gives it it’s power in the first place.

We seek the kingdom of God, before everything else. We connect that kingdom agenda to the culture around us, both by speaking it to the world and by showing it in our churches. As we do so, we remember our mission to oppose demons, not to demonize opponents. As we advocate for human dignity, for religious liberty, for family stability, let’s do so as those with a prophetic word that turns everything upside down.

The signs of the times tell us we are in for days our parents and grandparents never knew. But that’s no call for panic or surrender or outrage. Jesus is alive. Let’s act like it. Let’s follow him, onward to the future.”

From

I hope the Moral Majority as a movement at least in the sense that it has any real political power outside of the Republican Party is essentially over and done with. It is a movement that still sees America in the year 1955. Even as the country is now sixty-years old and has simply developed and moved on.

Americans, tend to like their freedom and to be able to live their own lives. And generally now especially with younger Americans even in the Bible Belt, don’t have issues with things like multiculturalism and racial and ethnic diversity, homosexuality, women working out of the home, pre-marital sex, domestic partnerships that even produce children, immigration, gambling pornography and I could go on, but I’ll save you from that. But these are all issues that the Moral Majority has fought against at least since the 1960s and have even wanted government to get involved in and regulating with how consenting adults live their own lives.

What you may see now with whatever is left of the Moral Majority is a movement that tries to bring people to them. But leaves government out and tells people this is the best and moral way to live based on their religious values. And try to get people to adopt their way of life and lifestyle. But stop trying to get government to pass their values into law. And to educate people about what their movement is about. Because I think they are even realizing now and Russell Moore is an example of this that they no longer have much support outside of the Republican Party and have even lost support inside of the Republican Party. With the growing conservative libertarian movement that is made up of a lot of young Republicans now.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment