Keith Hughes: McCarthyism Explained- US History Review

Source: Keith Hughes- Senator Joe McCarthyism Explained 

Source:The New Democrat

To talk about McCarthyism I think you have to talk about Senator Joe McCarthy who in the early and mid 1950s was the ranking Republican on the Senate Investigations Committee first as Ranking Member and then as Chairman. And when Republicans won back Congress in 1952, Senator McCarthy becomes Chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee thanks to the Dwight Eisenhower sweep where the Republican win back the White House, House, and Senate all in the same election.

Source: Professor Girard- The Joe McCarthy Era 

Because of the landslide Republican victory in 1952 Senator McCarthy is now one of the most powerful members not just of the Senate, but the entire Congress as well. And with that now has the power to launch his investigation into supposed Communists in the U.S. Government. That is how we get what became McCarthyism and this hyper partisan, tribalist, guilt by association, nationalistic Far-Right movement in America, that came right after the House Un-American Activities Committee that was supposed to investigate Communists in Hollywood.

To talk about Senator McCarthy, you also have to talk about what McCarthy and his movement represented in America back then and still represents today. This us against them tribalistic-nationalist mentality that they're supposed to be the real Americans and anyone who disagrees with them must hate America and therefore should be under investigation because they're working for the other side and not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the so-called real Americans the McCarthyite's who want to stamp out communism and Communists in America at all costs even if that means violating Americans constitutional rights like the First Amendment and Fourth Amendments.

And to talk about Joe McCarthy, you also have to talk about not just how he became so powerful in the Senate with the position that he obtained, but how that movement was allowed to get started in the first place. The Cold War and the start of America's long battle with communism with Soviet Russia and other communist and authoritarian states around the world and this hysteria that the Communists are coming and are going to take our country away from us and take away everything that we believe in and Senator McCarthy being a smart enough politician to see how he could play that and use it to his political advantage and his political skills the speeches, as well as radio and TV appearances that he gave back in the early and mid 1950s is how his movement was able to come about at all.
Source:Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes: 'The Balanced Budget Amendment Explained'

Source:Keith Hughes- on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Source:The New Democrat

"Whether you think the balanced budget amendment is the best thing since sliced bread or the embodiment of Lucifer or you have no idea what the heck it, we'll give you the basics!" 

From Keith Hughes

On its face, I guess the Balanced Budget Amendment sounds like a good thing. The problems are several and not just the impracticality of it, that it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass it and then if Congress were to pass it then you’re looking at thirty-four states having to approve if it as well. 

But then there’s also the economic problems with a BBA. When the economy is slow, you don’t want to cut infrastructure and Unemployment Insurance. If anything you want to invest more in those programs to put people back to work and help people get back to work faster. When the economy is doing well, that is when you want to keep your deficit and debt down. So when the economy slows down it doesn’t have a high debt and deficit to go with it as well.

One easy thing to get our debt and deficit under control would simply to have a Federal PAYGO law. Pay as you go and under that Congress wouldn’t be able to invest more in, or create a new program anywhere in the government without paying for it through either taxes, fees, or cutting other spending to pay for it. And Congress wouldn’t be allowed to cut taxes without paying for that loss in revenue to government as well. 

You could also do things like not allowing for government to grow faster than the economy when the economy is growing and when you have a large workforce. Reforming the government and budget and having Washington do less and using public assistance to put people to work and become economically independent.

What we really should be doing is start with, “shall do no further harm.” Don’t add to the current debt and deficit by creating higher deficits. And that is where PAYGO comes in. 

And then go from there like having fewer people in poverty and on public assistance with a stronger economy that is producing not just more jobs, but more good jobs where people don’t also have to have public assistance to support themselves at all. 

We could also use public assistance to again not just support people in the short-term and put them to work, but to put them to work working good jobs. So they don’t need things like public assistance to support themselves at all. And that gets to things like more education and job training for non-working low-skilled adults and for unemployed workers who need additional skills to get a good job.

Keith Hughes: The Dred Scott Decision Explained: US History Review

Source:Keith Hughes.

Source:The New Democrat

The Dred Scott decision is one of the worst decisions in American history. The fact that African-Americans weren’t considered American citizens at the time, even if they lived in free states meaning that whether you were African, or Caucasian you were free and couldn’t be held as a slave and that under the U.S. Constitution everyone born inside of the United States, or has at least one parent born in the United States, was ridiculous. A simple bad reading of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution at best and racist at worst from the U.S. Justices’s who ruled in that direction. And of course this decision was even worst for Dred Scott who would have to live as a slave.

But even with horrible rulings and decisions comes some positive features. It meant the United States was going to have to decide whether it was going to be a free country. Meaning all Americans are free, or whether it was going to be a half free, half slaved country. If you’re of European descent, you were free and couldn’t be a slave. If you were of African descent, you most likely would be a slave. Had the Confederate States somehow managed to win the American Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was kind of like that last blow that ignited the American Civil War. Putting the North against the South to decide what type of country America was going to be. Or would we end up splitting similar to what happened to Germany, Korea and Vietnam. A free North and a half free half slaved South.

The American Civil War, was bad for lots of reasons. Because of all the destruction that came to America. Leaving the North to be fairly prosperous which it has remained for the most part ever since. And the South to be fairly poor and needing so much Federal aid to try to rebuild themselves. And something the South, if you look at South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, they’ve never fully recovered from the Civil War. Plus all the innocent lives that were lost on both sides. But the Civil War did lead to the abolishment of slavery in America. And America has only made progress in the areas of race relations, equal rights and civil rights ever since.

Keith Hughes: What is a Conservative?

Source:The New Democrat

I’m just going to give you the classical definition of conservative and conservatism and how you believe that relates today, that is up to you. Because I’m not so much into classical or modern when it comes to conservative, but what it actually means to be a Conservative. And I go to Abraham Lincoln and look at least some of our Founding Fathers. Up to Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Robert Taft in the 1940s, Dwight Eisenhower at least to a certain extent in the 1950s, Barry Goldwater from the time he entered Congress in the 1950s, until time Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987. And then I would go to Rand Paul today and the conservative libertarian wing of the Tea Party.

If words are going to matter, than so have to definitions, otherwise words are just words, sort of like a politician giving a speech, but not really saying anything. So when I look at the word conservative, I look at the word conserving. I know! Shocking right, the nerve of me, but that is what conservative means, someone who believes in conserving. And the other way to look at conservative, would be someone who believes in moving conservatively. “Not so fast, Joe, lets take another look at this before we decide where to go from here”. John Boehner Speaker of the House, fits that definition like a glove.

So now take conservative up to politics and how does that relate and especially the role of government. Okay, so I’ll give you the political conservative how that plays to role of government.  

So a Conservative is not going to want to expand the government. At least not quickly and again they believe in conserving. So a Conservative won’t vote to repeal someone’s individual rights. And that gets to property rights and one’s money like with tax increases. Where a Conservative will tend to be against. But that also gets to things as it relates to personal issues, like the Right to Privacy. A Conservative is not going to support limiting or subtracting those things. Why, because that fails two tests of being a conservative. Subtracting instead of conserving and expanding the role of government.

If you have heard Barry Goldwater’s line about big government, I suggest you do because it a must get as far as what it means to be a Conservative. “I’m a Conservative because I want big government out of my wallet, bedroom, boardroom and classroom”. So a Conservative is not going to support taxes hikes, property rights restrictions and regulations that put government in charge of running private organizations. But a Conservative is not going to support at least ay the federal level laws that tell Americans, consenting adults who they can sleep with, who they can marry, what they can do in the privacy of their own home and how they can spend their own money.

If you call yourself a Conservative, because you are against big government and believe in individual freedom, then you are against big government as it relates to both the economy, but personal lives and personal issues. Otherwise you’re not a Conservative, perhaps You are half of a Conservative, Perhaps you’re half of the loaf. “I believe in individual freedom when it comes to economic policy and big government because it comes to our personal affairs. Because Americans are smart enough to know what to do with their money. But not smart enough to know how to spend it on their own, or manage their own personal affairs”. Now you’re not a Conservative, but a pandering politician and propagandist. There’s what conservatism means to a non-Conservative.