Zip Trivia: ‘Are You a Commie, or a Citizen?’

Posted on February 21, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Zip Trivia

Source:Zip Trivia– Narrator of the right-wing propaganda film: “Are You a Commie or a Citizen.

“This movie tells you what it takes to be a true patriotic, American. If you can’t rat out the godless commies without thinking, watch this film!”

From Zip Trivia 

“Authentic first-hand information by a man who knows. In 1939 Reverend Kenneth Goff resigned from the Communist Party and voluntarily appeared before the Dies Committee with vital documents showing Un-American activities, the aims, purposes, and methods of the Party in this country. His revelations may well have started the anti-Communist wave of protest that is sweeping America.”

Joe Stalin

Source:Amazon– A book about Russian Communist dictator Joseph Stalin. 

From Amazon

Just from the outset this looks like a Tea Party propaganda film about what it means to be a real American. And this is coming from someone who believe our form of government and economic system is the best in the world based on facts. But this guys does makes some good points about Europe which did move very Far-Left in the 1940s and 50s after World War II. Eastern Europe becoming a collection of Communist States under Soviet control. And the states west of the Slavic States were becoming or had already established social democracies in their country. Democratic Socialist States like Britain and France to use as examples.

For an anti-communist propaganda film, the guy in this film actually does a pretty good and puts some real facts on the table. And doesn’t try to go after Americans who are left of the center-left in America. People who are left of Liberals and say anyone who supported Franklin Roosevelt or Henry Wallace for president must not only be a Communist, but is Un-American and should either be locked up for that, or not allowed to live in America at all. Which is what you got in a lot of these anti-communist propaganda films from this period. Which led up to Congress launching the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Investigative Committee that looked at Communists in the U.S. Government.

What the guy in this film does instead is put real facts on the table about communism and the standards of living in Communist Russia and Communist China compared with the living standards in Liberal Democratic America (sorry Conservatives) and how our standard of living was better. And the benefits of things like capitalism, private enterprise and competition. Which is a lot of what the American economic system is about. And allowing for individuals to be able to be as successful as their skills allow for them to be. Instead of having a big superstate big enough to take care of everybody.

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

Jnuss Bau: The Hollywood Blacklist: 1947-1960

Posted on February 21, 2015 by Erik Schneider

.

The late 1940s and all the way up to at least the mid-1950s or so was one of the most fascist illiberal and anti-liberal democratic periods of our time. I think elements of today’s Tea Party and the Ann Coulter’s of the world would’ve loved to be alive back then. Because it was a time when an American could be perceived as being a bad person simply because of who they may have associated with in the past. Especially if you were on the Far-Left in America and at the very least had socialistic and communistic leanings as far as what people like that would want to accomplish for America. A more collectivist and equal society.

This is not what America is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be that liberal democracy liberal society free society that the rest of the world wants to mimic. Where everyone has the right to be themselves and believe in what they believe whatever that they may be and be able to associate with whoever they choose to just as long as we aren’t hurting any innocent people with what we are doing. But if you were around back in the late 1940s and 1950s and you were an adult and you were somewhat Far-Left politically and you worked in Hollywood, that is not the type of country that you saw. You saw a country where you could be viewed as guilty and immoral simply because of people you associated with and your political beliefs.

Were there Socialists and Communists in Hollywood back then, I’m sure there were and probably still today. At least when it comes to Democratic Socialists especially if you look at a lot of Hollywood’s political films. But just because someone’s political views are out of the American mainstream and puts them on the Far-Left or Far-Right in America doesn’t automatically make them bad people. And it shouldn’t cost them jobs either. Which is what happened to the Hollywood Ten back then members of the movie industry who lost jobs and whose reputations suffered simply because of their political views. Or their perceived political views, or people that they associate with, or had associated with in the past.

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

The Washington Post: Wendy Kaminer: ‘The Progressive Ideas Behind The Lack of Free Speech on Campus;

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Attachment-1-1260

Source: The Washington Post– Left-Wing PC Warriors

“Is an academic discussion of free speech potentially traumatic? A recent panel for Smith College alumnae aimed at “challenging the ideological echo chamber” elicited this ominous “trigger/content warning” when a transcript appeared in the campus newspaper: “Racism/racial slurs, ableist slurs, antisemitic language, anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language, anti-immigrant language, sexist/misogynistic slurs, references to race-based violence, references to antisemitic violence.”

From The Washington Post

“1991 interview with Robin Fox on how political correctness infiltrates college campuses.”

From Liberty Pen

Robin Fox - Political Correctness On The Campus

Source:Liberty Pen– Robin Fox, on The Open Mind with Richard Hefner, in 1991.

I don’t want to say this is true about every college in America, but it is true about too many of them especially where the faculties lean very left. And I’m not talking about liberal or center-left, but much further left than that to the point that they not only believe certain speech is wrong and offensive, but to the point that they don’t even believe it should be considered. And see it as dangerous to the point it shouldn’t even be heard let alone considered. And this affects their student bodies and turns them into essentially campus fascists. Where they won’t allow alternative views to be heard.

If there is any place in the country where freedom of thought and speech and new ideas would be heard, it would be on college campus’. Where young adults whose minds aren’t completely developed would be able to access all sorts of ideas and be able to consider them themselves. While their teachers give them the history and facts about those ideas and philosophies. In other words teach their students how to think and to examine things. But not what to think and leave that up to them once they are trained in how to examine ideas and thoughts. Because now they would be able to see those things for themselves.

And I’m sure there are already colleges like that in America, Otherwise political correctness would be a hell of a lot popular instead of losing support. But as a teacher or professor or dean if you don’t promote the idea of freedom of thought and speech at your school, you’re essentially telling your students that you don’t trust them. That even though they are smart and did well in school to the point they are now students are your college, they can’t be trusted to think for themselves. And as a result you end up promoting a collectivist society where people at the top decide what is right and wrong in society. Instead of a free society where people have the freedom to think and speak for themselves.

Posted in Originals, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason: Peter Suderman: ‘How President Obama’s 529 Tax Plan Proves The Welfare State is Doomed’

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

“My mother’s caregiver, Tamara, despises Vladimir Putin. She’s a Georgian, and bitterly resents Russia’s 2008 invasion of her home country and subsequent appropriation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Moscow’s orbit. “That idiot Putin!” Tamara cries every time I visit my mom. Putin, she says, is determined to reconstitute as much of the Soviet Union as possible; now that he’s carved off Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will also find excuses to invade and swallow the three Baltic states. “If no one stops him,” she says, “that idiot will keep going. You’ll see.” I used to think Tamara’s fears were exaggerated, and that the pain of strong sanctions and a crumbling economy would deter Putin from further predations. But he has actually stepped up his aggression, with Russian state media predicting a direct military confrontation with the West — and warning that Russia might defend itself with a first-strike nuclear attack.”

From Reason Magazine

I don’t agree with libertarian Professor Milton Friedman on everything as a Liberal myself. But I think his best quote is “no free lunch’, which is something that I agree with. And what he was talking about was government and public services. That if government is giving you something, then it is not free. Just like food you buy at a grocery store or a phone you buy at an electronics store, you’re paying for the services that you receive. And government is no different other than how you pay for those services. The private sector charges you with bills and the public sector charges through taxes.

Just once I would like to hear a politician say, “I have a plan that would make this or that affordable”. Instead of saying, “I have a plan to give you free X or Y”. Just replace the word free with affordable and then maybe more Americans will actually take politicians seriously and give them a few minutes of respect before they turn the channel. Because every American who pays taxes knows that the government services that they are getting are not free. It might be free for your kids, take education to use as an example. But their education is sure as hell not free for you, if you pay property or sales taxes. And your kids will have to pay that back through taxes when they start working.

I have no problem with a politician having a plan to provide this or that for the people. Just as long as it something that the whole can use and will benefit everyone involved. And I’ll even pay my fair share of taxes to pay for it and not complain about that. Just as long as everyone else is doing the same thing. Just don’t try to fool anyone and try to convince them that they’ll get those services for free. Because again any American who pays taxes will know you’re simply wrong if not lying about that and won’t take you seriously. Unless they are already on your side. Tell them, “this will benefit you, but this is how much it will cost you. But it will be worth it.” And more Americans won’t treat politicians as bullshit artists.

Posted in Originals, Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The National Interest: Scott MacDonald: Could Greece & Russia Crush The European Union?

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Source:The National Interest

Anyone especially lets say on the social democratic Left in America who thinks that America should adopt the Scandinavian or Greek economic model and become more like Europe economically with a bigger more centralized federal state with higher taxes and less individual choice and freedom, I beg you assuming you’re capable of learning and can understand facts that even contradict your ideological arguments, look at Greece and look at France economically. And you’ll see that even socialism has its limits and perhaps socialism in particular. Because when economies tank and taxes are up real high, people get hit real hard and the government is limited to what they can do to help those people.

No one outside of the Far-Left and Socialist-Left in Greece even want to continue doing what they are doing economically. They know their economy is essentially in a depression right now. Six years of recession and losing twenty-percent of their gross domestic product. Fifty-percent unemployment and this is a country that is supposed to be a socialist utopia, at least according to Socialists and other Social Democrats. I saw a book event last weekend with George Friedman as the speaker and he just wrote a book about Europe and gave a talk about Europe. And was talking about why Europe outside of Germany and perhaps Scandinavia is struggling so much right now economically. And what he said is that one of the reasons for this has to do that there are so many small to mid-size countries in Western Europe all bunched in together. Europe is a very small continent physically.

One of the solutions I at least believe to fixing the long-term economic, financial and security issues of Europe and Western Europe east of the Slavic States, would be to have a Federal Europe. A Unified Europe that could defend itself, that would be world power economically, militarily and politically. The Federal Republic would be the way to go because it would mean that all of these states that are giving up their national sovereignty would still retain authority over their domestic affairs inside of their state. But they would share the same currency with very other state in the Federal Republic. And would all be under the same economic, foreign policy and national security umbrella as every other state in the union.

Not talking about creating a huge European superstate with an unitarian government with most if not all the governmental and political power being centralized in Brussels, assuming Brussels becomes the European capital. A United Europe like that would never be put together let alone last. But a Federal Europe where the Federal Government would primarily be responsible for national security, foreign policy, trade, the currency, interstate crime and commerce, regulations, terrorism, immigration, collecting taxes to pay for their operations. But where the states would deal with their own domestic affairs. Education, the safety net or even welfare state, health care, crime, commerce inside of the states and so-forth.

A Europe like this would stabilize financially and economically. Because you would have one superpower economically. A huge market of three-hundred plus million people where the Federal Government would represent a fairly small percentage of the overall economy that would rival America actually as far as size. No one would want to invade or attack a country this large and powerful with all of their resources and military power that would be able to replace NATO. People would want to emigrate to a Federal Democratic Republic like this. And certainly would want to trade with this country. And it would make it much harder for a country like China and Russia to want to mess around with the European economy and security situation. Because of what a Federal Europe would be able to do in response with all of their resources.

Not saying this will happen anytime soon, probably not. Things like giving up national sovereignty and perhaps their national language that would instead become the official language of their state and not country would be difficult. But a weak Europe economically and militarily is good for Russia and China as they both seek to become bigger world powers. And real bad for Europe as those other countries become stronger and bigger as Europe becomes weaker and smaller. Europe being democratic and free, while those other countries are authoritarian. And a Federal Europe would be a good way for Europe to step up and bounce back and emerge as a world power that other countries would have to notice.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: Martin S. Indyk: ‘A Return to The Middle Eastern Great Game’

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Middle East
Source:Brookings Institution– with a look at the Middle East.

“There is no place in the world today where chaos is more prevalent and the reestablishment of order more critical than the Middle East. The “great game” between rival great powers may have originated in Central Asia but it found its most intense expression at the “crossroads of empire” in the Middle East. As long as American interests are still engaged the United States cannot desist from playing it.

The United States used to have a strategy for the Middle East. It was known as the “pillars” strategy, and it was based on working with the regional powers that were committed to maintaining the status quo—Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey. The challenge was to contain the revisionist powers—Egypt, Iraq, and Syria—who were backed by the Soviet Union. Over time, the United States lost the Iranian pillar but gained an Egyptian one, reinforcing the Sunni Arab order, but now confronting a Shia revolutionary power in the Gulf.

In 1992, the United States became the dominant power in the region in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eviction of Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait. After that, Bush ’41 and Clinton ’42 adopted a clear, common strategy for preserving stability that involved three components…

You can read the rest of this article at Brookings

Supporting Middle Eastern dictators in the past may have worked in the past up until 1978 or so with the fall of the Shah of Iran, as far as maintaining some form of peace and stability in this region. And giving America a good resource for energy which we don’t need anymore, as well as intelligence on certain terrorist groups and the worst dictators that had plans for expanding their territory like Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But we’ve paid a heavy price for both financially and with our own security. Like having troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia a country more than capable of defending themselves both financially and with their current military.

Not excusing 9/11 obviously, but our involvement in Arabia and our subsidizing authoritarian states there, is one of the motivations for the attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11. We subsidized the Shah of Iran for about forty years going back to Franklin Roosevelt and the Shah was a tough, ruthless, dictator, that beat down the opposition. And the Iranians rose up and threw the Shah out of power and of course replaced that regime with another authoritarian regime the Islamic Theocrats. There are huge costs that America is still paying for subsidizing states that don’t have our best interest and their own people’s best interest at heart. And we’re still paying for them today.

And you can say that well if America and Europe didn’t subsidize these authoritarian regimes, something else that is worst would come instead. Perhaps if all you did was not subsidize them in the first place and done nothing else instead. But an alternative would be to give those states conditional backing. That they respect the human rights of their people. Like not arresting political prisoners simply for being against the current government. Respect the rights of their women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities. Most of the countries are fairly diverse across the board. And instead of backing authoritarian regimes, back people who want democratic change and to build a democratic society in their country.

Backing authoritarians doesn’t stop or prevent future violence or terrorism. Is just moves it around, because instead of the regime backing terrorists who would hit you, what you do instead of give the people on the ground in those countries who hate their government motivation to want to hit you. Get organized, join a current terrorist group or create their own that would work to knockout the current regime, as well as try to hit American targets.

America needs to get past the better of two evils foreign policy in the Middle East. And stop subsidizing bad guys even if they aren’t as bad as other bad guys. And instead work with the good guys who want to build a developed peaceful society where their people would be respected.

Posted in Brookings, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Salon: Bert Neuborne: The First Amendment As We Know it Today Didn’t Exist Until The 1960s

Posted on February 19, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Salon

I guess my question for Bert Neuborne who wrote this piece over at Salon would be did our First Amendment as we at least know it today didn’t exist until the 1960s, or is it just that the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal courts misinterpret the First Amendment and our Freedom of Speech? Because I think it is pretty obvious that arresting a political candidate for speaking out against a war, or newspapers for endorsing the opponent of the president is unconstitutional. I think you would have a hard time finding even a Far-Right judge today who would go along with that. At least when it comes to endorsing the opposition.

Again my question about have we always had the same First Amendment, but it was interpreted wrongly in the past, or has it simply changed over the years form one way or the other? Because our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals as I at least call them couldn’t of anticipated all the modern forms of communication that we have today and have had in the past. They couldn’t even anticipate the telephone landlines even or radio when they wrote the Constitution. Doesn’t mean our First Amendment doesn’t cover all of these modern devices. Because whether you speak this way or the other and use this device to communicate or another, you’re still speaking. And government at all levels is very limited in how they can regulate your speech under the First Amendment.

The last fifty-years or so the Federal courts have essentially interpreted Free Speech as covering every form of speech with few exceptions having to do with inciting violence, libel, yelling fire that isn’t there in tight public spaces. Now is that because our liberal Free Speech has only existed in the last fifty-years or so, or is that because the Federal courts were wrong or correct depending on your perspective in how they interpreted the First Amendment in the first 180 plus years or before the 1960s. I’m not a lawyer or historian obviously, but I believe our First Amendment as it is today and with all the speech that it protects has always been with us. Based on Congress shall make not law that infringes on the right of free speech.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Atlantic: Shadi Hamid- ‘France’s False Choice: Can Islam and Liberalism Coexist?’

Posted on February 19, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

France’s False Choice Can liberal societies come to terms with religious illiberalism_ (2015) - Google Search

Source:The Atlantic– Middle Easterners in France.

“The impressive and inspiring show of solidarity at France’s unity march on January 11—which brought together millions of people and more than 40 world leaders—was not necessarily a sign of good things to come. “We are all one” was indeed a powerful message, but what did it really mean, underneath the noble sentiment and the liberal faith that all people are essentially good and want the same things, regardless of religion or culture? Even if the scope is limited to Western liberals, the aftermath of the assaults in Paris on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket has revealed a striking lack of consensus on a whole host of issues, including the limits of free speech, the treatment of religions versus racial groups, and the centrality of secularism to the liberal idea. Turns out, we are not all one.”

From The Atlantic

Because of the fact that Muslims have emigrated from the Middle East and North Africa to the West and developed liberal societies where religion and state aren’t mixed in and where people have the right and freedom to be themselves in these free societies, gives me at least the idea that they decided to leave their native countries that are underdeveloped and a lot more religiously conservative and less tolerant to live in a free society, where they’ll have the opportunity to build a good life for themselves and their families.

Middle Easterners don’t emigrate to (France and Britain to use as examples) to start Islamic theocracies. They moved there so they can have freedom and economic opportunity that they weren’t getting at home.

America at least has already proved that religious conservatism can coexist in a liberal society and liberal democracy. We have a Religious-Right after all and by in large religious conservative are good decent productive Americans who have contributed a lot to America. They just have social views having to do with the women’s place in the world, homosexuality, privacy in general, freedom of speech as it comes to expression and certain forms of entertainment that are way out of step with a solid majority of Americans. And even though they have tried to get their values into law and force others to live under their values they’ve done it through the political process (for the most part) instead of doing it violently.

To me at least it is not a question of can Muslims succeed and live well in a liberal society. The question is do they want to. Do they want the freedom to be themselves and live under their own religious and moral values, while at the same time allowing for others who don’t agree with their values and way of life to do the same thing. Because that is what liberal democracy, the liberal society and free society are about: the freedom for people to be people, for individuals to be individuals. The ability for people to be themselves and live their own lives and not be forced to live a certain way of life because that is how someone wants them to. And these are questions that only Muslims can answer for themselves.

Posted in Originals, The Atlantic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sit News: Rick Jensen- If Big Government Ordered Your Lunch

Posted on February 19, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

SitNews_ Column - Big Government and Fat Taxes By RICK JENSENSource:Sit News– its Big Government that needs a diet.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“(SitNews) – How much should the government fine people whose children are deemed by (some) well-meaning bureaucrats as “obese?”

$500? $800?

Senators in our friendly associated state, Puerto Rico, have been debating that very issue this week.

Seriously.

If you believe government certainly should be measuring your children for a “fat tax” in school because there are some unfit parents, you may want to inform your Democratic Congress Critters.”

From Sit News

This idea that a group of people centralized in one big city (even a city that I love) can direct the lives of a country of 320M people, that’s a continental nation that’s between two large oceans, is crazy.

People who I call Statists or political nannies, (whether they are female or male) have this idea that a certain lifestyle that they live, must be able to work for everyone, no matter how large the country, or how diverse it is. Because this lifestyle works for them and if you don’t conform with it, there’s something wrong with you. You are ignorant in some way, sort of how the establishment treated Hippies in the 1960s and 70s. But this type of thing is still going on today, from the Left and Right.

To be blunt about it, the Far-Left and Far Right, people who have this idea of what it means to be an American. From the right because this is how it use to be. And from the Left this is how its done in other countries, it seems to work there, so this is how we should be living as a country.

Thats not the role of government to direct how its people live. But what they can do with agencies like FDA is inform Americans on the dangers and benefits of doing this, or that. Put out all the credible info available, but not try to force people to live that way. Because they know that they can’t. The War on Drugs, or organized gambling, are excellent examples of this. And then to make suggestions on what activities are healthy and what aren’t and what are the benefits and minus’ of doing such activities. Suggesting that people eat balance diets and exercise everyday, knowing that they can’t force people to do those things.

And this is what alcohol, tobacco and I would add marijuana can do to you, instead of trying to outlaw those things and trying to protect people from themselves. The United States is simply too large and vast of a country for an elite group in Washington, or anywhere else to try to control a country that is this large. But what it can do, is inform people on what activities are healthy and unhealthy in life and make suggestions. About certain things in what Americans should do with their lives based on credible research not ideology.

Posted in Big Government, Real Life Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoover Institution: Karl W. Eikenberry: A Grand Strategy For Failed States

Posted on February 19, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Source:Hoover Institution

Here’s my definition of a failed state. A state that can’t defend itself even against domestic threats whether the government is a good peaceful responsible government, or an authoritarian regime with a bad human rights record. That would be Libya right now and you could make a case for Syria as well, because without Russia, the Assad Regime might have failed by now. A state where the current government is in trouble and about to fall, where members of the government or administration are looking to escape their own country because the rebels are about to take over. Iran comes to mind in 1978-79 as a failed stated under the Shah.

So what does this mean to America and how can America prevent future failed states and why should it if it should at all.

The last thing the civilized world needs are armed terrorist groups with their own territory and land about the size of a large country that wants to occupy further territory and even take over Western allies. So the West doesn’t want ISIS or someone else being able to occupy Somalia or Libya, Yemen to use as examples, or Syria or Iraq. But at the same time we shouldn’t be subsidizing and arming authoritarian regimes in countries either. One, because of the bad human rights records of those countries. But the practical reasons being that the behavior of those countries towards their own people just feeds extremism and gives it birth. And rebels who might be just as bad as their government reason to want to overthrow the current regime.

What America should do is when one of these authoritarian states falls like in Libya, Tunisia and Yemen and the rebels aren’t as bad or as the people they are replacing and want a responsible government instead, which is what we saw in Afghanistan even with all the problems that, that country has and still has, is work with the people there to build a responsible government and modern country. That can defend itself and create an environment where their people can thrive and succeed. Where foreign countries would want to invest and everything else that developing countries have to have.

If anything the last 15-20 years have taught us is that America can’t police the world by itself. That we are limited in what we can do and have to be smart with our resources and smarter with our resources than we have in the past. That we have to work with our allies and have to be smart with rebels that want to overthrow their regimes. That you can’t work with people simply because they are against the current government that you want to see out of office. Because the rebels might be as bad if not worst than the people before them. That we shouldn’t be subsidizing authoritarian states, but we shouldn’t be subsidizing terrorists and other authoritarians either.

America should be about promoting democracy and freedom liberal or otherwise in countries that actually want it especially if they don’t already have that. Not trying to force it on people who didn’t ask for it especially if they don’t have any history of it. When you don’t subsidize and arm authoritarian states and terrorists the people in those countries don’t have reason to want to hurt you. And as a result terrorists groups are going to have fewer people that they can recruit against you. Because people they would target don’t see you as the enemy and perhaps even as a potential ally.

Posted in Hoover Institution, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment