Helmer Reenberg: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- On The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Source: Helmer Reenberg- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From the Encyclopedia Britanica 

"Senator Barry Goldwater talks to reporters about his memories of and respect for President Kennedy." 

From Helmer Reenberg

The assassination of Jack Kennedy was tragic in so many ways for so many people and a big reason for it was, because of how talented President Kennedy was as a President as well as a man. But just as political junky from my perspective, one of the reasons why his death was so tragic, was because of what could've been. 

The 1964 presidential election would've look and it would've probably affected the Congressional elections as well. Because I believe and we will never have anyway of knowing this that a Goldwater-Kennedy election would've been much closer. 

After President Kennedy was assassinated most of the country turned to Lyndon Johnson to be their President to full-fill President Kennedy's agenda. Which is a big reason why Richard Nixon didn't run for President in 1964 and waited till 1968. But I believe the 1964 presidential election had it been between Goldwater and Kennedy, would've been a great presidential election. I think Kennedy would've still won though.

But with Senator Barry Goldwater, you would've had a presidential candidate representing classical conservatism about as well as it could be represented. And to a certain extent I believe he did that anyway in 1964. Running against President Johnson despite losing in a landslide where I believe he won less than 40% of the vote and lost around forty states. But managed to win Southern states that were owned by the Democratic Party. 

And then you would've had President Jack Kennedy on the Center-Left, a liberal hero of mine, representing liberalism as well as it could be represented. And I believe we would've seen great debates across the country. As they were apparently already talking about doing in as early as 1962, I believe from what I would've heard. And they would've been great debates, on civil rights. The President being in favor of the civil rights bills that President Johnson got through Congress. Senator Goldwater had a different approach: Medicare which was a bill that President Kennedy tried to push through Congress. Senator Goldwater would've wanted a different bill with more competition for senior citizens. 

Cuba with Fidel Castro and how we try to deal with that Communist Republic, there would've been a lot of great issues that these great men would've debated in 1964. 

The assassination of President Jack Kennedy was tragic on many levels, but from a perspective of a political junky, it was tragic for the country as well. Because they were left with one less great general election. With President Kennedy running a tough race to get reelected and Senator Goldwater giving him a run for his money. 

A Goldwater-Kennedy presidential election, would have been a great classic battle, between the Center-Right and the growing conservative movement. Against Center-Left Liberals, who are called New Democrats today. But we'll never know. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Moore, talking about U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution 

"One of Britain’s most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher."  

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore, on Margaret Thatcher.

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward religious conservatism.

Christian-Conservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Christian-Conservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Marijuana Community: 'US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!'

Source:Marijuana Community- Mexican drug dealers.

"US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!" 

From Marijuana Community

Here's another example of the hypocrisy in the American so-called War on Drugs: allowing some narcotics come into America, in exchange for info on other drug cartels. Fixing one broken leg while you are breaking the other. And you can add this to the list of hypocrisy in the fake War on Drugs: prohibiting marijuana while allowing alcohol and tobacco, drugs that are just as dangerous if not more dangerous than marijuana. 

Now I've said this before: I'm not for legalizing marijuana because I think its good for people or I want to use it and not risk going to jail because of that use. But what I'm saying is that if government is going to prohibit and activity, because they think it's bad for people and try to protect us from ourselves and try to make these decisions for us, instead of giving us the freedom of choice to decide these things for ourselves, then they should prohibit all activities where the cost benefits are about the same. Alcohol and tobacco are excellent examples when talking about marijuana. Otherwise it's just hypocritical of government and gives people another reason not to trust them, as if people didn't have enough already. 

If you want to win the fake War on Drugs, you can start by being honest with the people you are trying to protect and not be hypocritical. And stop having laws and trying to pass new laws that attempts to protect people from themselves and instead just have laws that try to protect innocent people from the harm of others. Because once you pass a law, you still have to enforce it , otherwise it's as worthless as jaywalking laws. 

Just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean it goes away, thats why we have jails and prisons, all the evidence you need to know that. And enforcing laws comes with a cost whether they are good laws or bad laws. A cost to society, so you might as well just have good honest laws that are designed to protect innocent people from the harm of others. And stop having and passing as Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws" laws that are designed to protect people from themselves instead of the harm of others. 

This Mexican drug cartel case of where the U.S. Government agreed to let narcotics smuggled into America in exchange for intelligence on other drug cartels. Is just more evidence of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the fake War on Drugs and why we need to change and reform it before this war causes more damage on American society.

Eric Cantor: 'With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?'

Source:House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- talking about President Obama, taxes, and the economy.

"With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?"

From House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

In round one of the debt deal, there was a plan that was all about budget cuts, including in the Defense Department and no cuts in entitlement programs. 

Round two of the debt deal will be about entitlement reform and tax reform. I don't see this Republican House ever going for tax hikes on anyone, income tax hikes impossible. But would could happen from this Congressional Joint Committee (as I prefer to call them) is tax reform that closes tax loopholes, including corporate welfare, big oil and gas subsidy's eliminated and using that revenue to help pay down the debt. In exchange these company's would be able to have more areas to operate which would actually be good for the economy, because of the jobs it would create. 

I believe this is the best that Democrats and the President will be able to get from this Republican House. And is something that they and the Democratic Senate should fight for. As well as entitlement reform that saves these programs without hurting people who need them. But demanding that wealthier people who don't need them, pay more into them and take out less. 

As far as the rest of the social insurance programs in the Federal Government: I would like to see them taken off of the Federal and state budgets all together. And made independent of the Federal Government all together and turned into non-profit, good will services that would help people in need as well as empowering these people to become self-sufficient. But still regulated by the Federal Government. But I don't see that this Congressional Joint Committee coming up with this. But thats an idea I'll be pushing in the future. 

The problem with the economy isn't that taxes are too high on the wealthy. The problem with the economy has to do with lack of demand. People aren't spending enough money and purchasing enough items, for business's to make enough money to create enough economic growth that leads to strong job growth. 

And while we are waiting for the Congressional Joint Committee to hopefully draft round two of debt reduction, hopefully the economy will be the next focus.

The White House and Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating more demand in it so people spend more money, to get economic and job growth going again. And they can do this without adding to the debt, which would be the easiest way to pay down the debt without hurting anyone. 

The economy should be Congress's main focus in September when they come back, things like a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself which would also help with our manufacturing industry. Because the people who do these projects need the supplies to do this work. 

And we also need a comprehensive energy plan would help the economy as well and allow our energy company's to expand their presence in America. Which again would create a lot more jobs in exchange for cutting their corporate welfare. 

And last but never least, three trade deals stuck in Congress: Central America, Columbia and Korea, three major markets where we could export our goods.  

It's  good that round one of debt reduction is behind us and now Washington will have an opportunity to focus on the economy when Congress comes back in September along with the NFL, hint hint. And that has to be the biggest focus right now for several reasons but also without a strong economy, debt reduction means nothing. 

CNN: '1994- Newt Gingrich's Contract With America'

Source:CNN- House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) talking about the House Republicans Contract With America.

 "In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans against the Clinton administration and orchestrated "The Contract With America." 

From CNN

The 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress that not only saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years, but saw them take control of the Senate for the first time in eight years, was obviously very impressive. First of all the numbers: they went from I believe 178 Seats in the House to 230, a fifty two seat pickup in one mid-term election. And then some right-wing Democratic Representatives switched over to the Republican Party right after that election. 

And Senate Republicans went from forty four Senators, a filibuster proof minority to fifty three, a nine seat pickup in the Senate. Where only 1/3 of the Senators runs every two years so that pretty impressive as well. 

But it's how Congressional Republicans did this: a lot of it were gifts from the Democratic Party President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The 103rd Democratic Congress was very productive as far as passing legislation. President Clinton got most of his agenda from the 1992 campaign through his first two years. 

I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of this and I believe a lot of good legislation. Two trade agreements that both actually had bipartisan support that the Republican Leadership who were still in the minority in both the House and Senate, instead of trying to block it like they were successful in doing with health Care reform, helped try to pass those bills.

Then President Clinton got his Family and Medical Leave bill through, his deficit reduction bill through without one Republican in Congress voting for it. And the 1994 crime bill that had some bipartisan support for. As well as two Supreme Court Justices through the Democratic Senate, Stephen Brier and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two liberals, by the way. 

But the problem with most of this legislation that President Clinton and Congressional Democrats passed was how unpopular it was with the Republican base and Independents and ended up uniting the entire Republican Party against President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. 

And the Republican Congressional Leadership along with the Republican National Committee and their allies knew how unpopular Washington Democrats were and were able to take advantage of this anger across the country and tell people especially in Republican areas, that they don't like what the Democrats are doing as well, vote for them in 1994 and they'll stop them. Along with the Senate Republican Leadership with Bob Dole able to block more legislation from passing. 

Another thing that I respected as a political junky and also as a Liberal even though I disagreed with a lot of the Contract with America, was what it was about, getting America back to classical conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism and foreign policy conservatism. Even though they brought in the Christian- Right which certainly doesn't represent classical conservatism but religious fundamentalism.

The Newt Gingrich Congressional Republicans (especially in the House) weren't from the George W Bush Administration. Their message was the Federal Government was too big, has too much power and spends too much money. And has moved away from what the U.S. Constitution and we need to send some of this power back to the states and people. And give them a bigger say in how they govern themselves. This was sort of a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan conservative message. That they almost threw away in their first two years but they got off to a good start.

Reagan Foundation: President Reagan's- Address To The Nation On The Economy- 2/05/81

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of The United States.

"President Ronald Reagan's address to the nation on the economy. 2/5/81. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation." 

From the Reagan Foundation

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. 

President Reagan n 1979-80 ran on turning the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. 

Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Robert Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. 

As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. 

President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. 

When President Reagan left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. 

Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War, he thought that price was worth paying. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line- Community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line in 1967.

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around." 

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)