The John Birch Society: ‘Robert Welch Predicts Insiders’ Plans to Destroy America (1974)’

Source:John Birch Society- founder Robert Welch in 1974.

"Robert Welch understood the Insiders’ plans to destroy America in 1958 when he founded The John Birch Society. In his 1974 speech to members, he exposed the Globalist agenda and predicted the problems America would face today with uncanny accuracy.

 

Find out for yourself not only his predictions, but also his solution to protect American sovereignty and stop the New World Order before its too late!"

From The John Birch Society

The New-Right movement didn’t start in 2009 with the Tea Party movement. Certainly not in 2000 with George W Bush, who had a neoconservative presidency, or in 1994 with the Gingrich Revolution. Or in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution or in 1964 with the Goldwater Campaign. 

The current thinking of New-Right (Nationalists and religious fascists) goes back to the early 1900s or longer, when waves of non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans started immigrating to America: the Irish, Poles and other Slavs, the Jews and Italians, all started immigrating to America. 

Thanks to President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and then the New-Right saw the growth of the United Nations and other international organizations post-World War II and of course the New-Right didn’t like that and then with President Johnson’s Great Society agenda in the 1960s, the New-Right (Far-Right, really) saw their America disappearing and looking less American. (According to them) 

Richard Nixon wasn't a fascist or a racist, but he was a great politician and political operative who still wanted to be President in 1966-67 and believed that the only way he was going to be able to that was with a much larger Republican Party. And that meant bringing in new voters who weren't Republicans before, who voted for John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and a whole host of other Democrats. 

Nixon's coalition included Northeastern Progressive Republicans (he was a Center-Right Progressive as well) but he needed culturally, as well as religiously conservative voters, if he had any shot at winning the presidency in 1968. Which is where his Silent Majority emerges in 1967-68, which included what what's called the Christian-Right today, people who are blue-collar, small town, religious fundamentalist voters, who believed their America was disappearing thanks to the Counter-Culture, immigration, and integration.

The New-Right has people who are called Religious Conservatives (Christian-Conservatives) in it, who  have at least some influence on the Tea Party movement, especially Religious-Conservatives.

The John Birch Society and other New-Rightists (Nationalists and religious fascists) have influenced the Tea Party movement in a negative way and have tried to move the Republican Party past-George W Bush’s neoconservatism. And try to get the Republican Party past this and back to being about the Culture-War and taking back America. (As the Tea Party puts it) And if they don’t believe the Republican Party is about the Cultural-War, they'll try to defeat them even within the Republican Party, even if it costs the Republican Party seats. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Battle Cry For Freedom: Richard Nixon- 'On Democratic Failures in Leadership'

Source:Battle Cry For Freedom- from a 1968 Richard Nixon for President campaign ad.

"Nixon on Liberal Failures in Leadership - 1968 Election Ad. Nixon 1968 Presidential election campaign ad." 

From Battle Cry For Freedom

If there was ever a perfect time for someone to run for President of the United States and I guess I would add Ronald Reagan in 1980 to that list, but the person I'm thinking of would be Richard Nixon in 1968. 

1968 is one of the most divisive years at least in the 20th Century. America seemed to be going through both politically as well as a Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. The Democratic Party had all of the power in the Federal Government for eight of the first nine years. And there was this feeling that America was sort of coming apart.

Whether that was true or not and Richard Nixon, who had been running for president at least since 1965 after sitting out in 1964, sensed this being the great politician that he was, President Lyndon Johnson was very unpopular especially with the Vietnam War. 

The Hippie Revolution was going on and there was this feeling with Conservatives and perhaps Independents as well, that liberalism at least social liberalism had gone too far. I disagree with that as a Liberal, but that was the feeling from Conservatives. With the civil rights laws, anti-war movement and the Hippie Revolution of that decade as well. And there was this feeling that America needed a change a new direction and Dick Nixon picked up on this.

Dick Nixon had already paid his dues with the Republican Party. (So to speak) He was already a known name in the party, serving in Congress from 1947-53, Vice President from 1953-61, and losing one of the closest presidential elections in American history to Jack Kennedy in 1960. 

Nixon was smart enough not to run for president in 1964 where Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson. But Senator Goldwater did manage to win some conservative Southern states in that election. That the Democratic Party used to own which also helped set up Dick Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign.

Nixon also campaigned for Congressional Republicans in the 1966 mid-term elections where the Republican Party picked up around forty seats in the House and four in the Senate. The Democratic Party still had large majority's in the House and Senate, but these gains also helped set up the 1968 campaign for the Republican Party, which made Nixon look like the clear frontrunner in the Republican Party in 1968, because a lot of Republican politicians owed Nixon favors. 

Dick Nixon saw that America was divided and that he would be candidate to try to unite the country. Or at least unite part of the country behind him and the Republican Party. The people who he called the Silent Majority the people who weren't part of the Hippie Revolution or the anti-war movement. And 1964 and 68 was the start of the Republican Party taking over the South and winning more offices. Where over forty years later they basically own that region politically.

Liberty Pen: Professor- Milton Friedman- 'The Welfare Establishment (1978'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in Chicago about the American economy and government, in 1978.

"Professor Friedman looks at the dynamics of the welfare state. Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

The term “Welfare Establishment”, I find interesting, because it suggests that there’s a group of people, who get together to design social insurance programs for people, who for whatever reasons can’t support themselves. Or these programs go to help these people support themselves. That these people get together to plan how they are going to take care of low-income low-skilled people. With other people’s money. Which is my main problem with the welfare state. 

I don’t support the idea of a welfare state, because a welfare state is basically for anyone who pays into them and it makes people dependent on them, because they expect to get them. And less independent than they can be, because they know they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them. And people on Welfare, feel that they don’t need to work as hard. Or be as productive as they can be, because again they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them. 

I believe in a safety net which is different. A safety net, is for people who needs it, who don’t have a large enough pension fund to take care of them, can’t afford enough health insurance once they retire, can’t afford enough health insurance while they are working. Lose their job and can’t find new work right away. Can’t afford a home on their own, can’t afford private education, etc. 

Basically a safety net, is for the people who lack the skills to take care of themselves for whatever reasons, but then its up to the safety net especially since its funded by taxpayers, to help these people who are physically and mentally capable, to get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves.

If we had a public assistance system that was about self-empowerment instead of dependence, guess what, fewer people would need public assistance, because more people would have the skills to take care of themselves. Which would make these social insurance programs more cost-effective and efficient, because fewer people would need them, because they would be supporting themselves and be self-sufficient. 

Its basic economics and more people would instead be paying into public assistance, instead of collecting from it. Which is why people who can fund their own retirements, unemployment, health Insurance etc, should be doing exactly that. Instead of collecting from Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicare.

Again, welfare state is for everyone, whether you need it or not and now we are wondering why we are going to have trouble funding it. Safety net, for the people who need it that empowers those people to be able to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient so we have fewer people dependent on public assistance. Two different concepts when it comes to social insurance. 

Social insurance, should be exactly that: a social insurance system, that people can collect from when they need it. That buys them time and allows for them to pay their short-term bills. While they are putting themselves back on their feet, or on their feet for the first time in their lives, because they grew up on Welfare and perhaps never saw their parents work at all. And made similar mistakes as their parents. Like dropping out of high school and having kids before they were ready to take care of them. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- Milton Friedman: 'Path To Socialism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Open Mind with Richard Heffner in 1975. 

"Milton Friedman explains the dynamics that naturally lead toward collectivism---and away from the far preferable state of individual liberty... Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

I guess, in Milton Friedman's world, there would be no public safety net. That if people fall through the cracks of capitalism, that thats too bad and they are stuck in that condition. Unless they can get themselves out of that condition on their own, or help from private citizens. To help them out, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, or even the Federal Reserve Bank. And that perhaps we wouldn't even regulate the economy at all, except for anti-monopoly laws. Dr. Friedman, was anti-monopoly. Both public and private and believed that individuals and corporations, shouldn't be able to pollute the environment as well.  That they should even be taxed when they do. Dr. Friedman, is sort of an inspiration of the Tea Party movement on economic policy.

Even though the Tea Party at least generally speaking, isn't as liberal on social issues. There are also some Tea Party members, perhaps a majority even that are in favor of Social Security, or Medicare. Perhaps because they collect from both of those programs, or their parents collect from both of those programs. And they don't want to see the benefits for themselves, or their parents to be eliminated and for them to have to fend for themselves. But would like to see some of these programs reformed in a way that allows for more freedom of choice. But there are also some Tea Party members, people who support Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who's a libertarian ideologically, who would like to see our safety net completely ended or phased out.

Representative Paul, has proposed phasing out our social insurance programs instead of eliminating them right way. So the people who currently collect from them, would still get their benefits. Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has proposed transferring these programs over to the States. So Dr. Friedman, has been an inspiration to Classical Conservatives and Libertarians and Liberals such as myself. But hasn't been the Gold Standard for the Tea Party movement, but someone who they've used to generate their own ideas. They agree that what the Federal Government is doing in certain areas is wrong. But they have similar, but different views in how to change them. So Milton Friedman, has been an inspiration to the Tea Party movement, but not its driving force. And more of an inspiration for Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

Libertarians, are clearly against the New Deal and Great Society and other progressive social insurance programs. And is a big inspiration for their movement and the formation of the Libertarian Party. But the Tea Party, is a bit different, because even though there are some Libertarians in this movement, they became a political movement based on a fiscal conservative message and they aren't for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. But would like to see the Federal Government cut back and eliminate spending in a lot of areas. So Dr. Friedman, has inspired parts of their movement, but doesn't represent their playbook. Similar, but different policy's. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

AEI: 'Is Competitiveness Worth Defending: Health Care Competition'

Source:AEI- some guy giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

If you were to design a Healthcare System from scratch, no one in their right minds would design a new health care system based on the American health care system. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, wouldn't design a health care system based on the American health care System. Everyone in their right mind across the political spectrum from Libertarians to Socialists and perhaps some people in their wrong minds, would design a different health care system from what we have now. 

We spend too much money compared with other developed nations (As far as percentage of GDP) Around 17% and with this weak economy and those health care Costs are only going to climb. We leave out about 50M people from having access to health insurance, some decide to be left out. But the overwhelmingly majority can't afford health insurance. They make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, which in some ways is a good thing, but not enough money to afford their own health insurance. Or they can't afford to buy their employers health insurance plan. 

We spend too much money on health care we don't need and are elective procedures. And we can't afford health care that people need to live healthy and stay alive. And we have a lot of people overcrowding our emergency rooms, getting health care that isn't an emergency, because they don't want make an appointment with a doctor and pay for health insurance or can't afford health insurance. 

What we need in America is a health care system that we can afford, obviously, but one where everyone has access to health insurance and health care. Which of course is easier said than done but is something that we can do and need to do before our health care system eats away at most of our economy. 

To create an affordable, quality health care system in America, gets to things like personal responsibility. Once we set up this system, people get themselves insured that are currently uninsured, but we do a better job of taking care of ourselves, stop smoking, drink less alcohol, eat better, exercise more and better, so we won't need to use as much health care in the future because we are healthier. And we would be able to bring down the costs of our own health care and health insurance. 

The 2010 Affordable Care Act which I supported and still do, was a positive first step in this direction, but just a first step. And even if it had a public option in it, it would've been just a bigger first step. The biggest contribution that the AFA made in my opinion is the Patient Bill of Rights in it, so people can't get dumped because they need health insurance and ending lifetime caps and other things like that. 

What we need in our health care system is more personal responsibility as I just explained. But more choice and competition, not less of it, which is one reason why I'm against single payer health insurance. And this is the reason why I'm in favor of a public option, but I'm not in favor of a public option, but fifty public options or more than that to cover the territory's as well as the states. And let's see what works across the country and what doesn't work. Expand what does work and eliminate what doesn't work. 

Fifty-plus non-profit, independent of government public options, that would be fully paid for that wouldn't have to come out of government tax revenue, because they would be financed by their consumers, that would compete with private non-profit health insurers, subjected to the same rules and regulations. And let's see who does the better jobs and attracts the most consumers. 

Freedom of choice works very well in the rest of our economy and is a big reason why we are the richest country in the World. And is something we should be applying to health care and education as well. And let the best and brightest the people who deliver the best service be rewarded for that. And breakup our monopolies. 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: 'There is No Such Thing as Public Money'

Source:The Free State- The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

"Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983." 

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money" she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective) 

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. 

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. 

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. 

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. 

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.  

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)

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen- 'The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in (1967)'

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, in 1967.

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (1959-69) explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is (or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video) when he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism.

Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law, because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation.

Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually, more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s, because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield (1961-77) and President Lyndon Johnson. (1963-69) They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress that would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neo-Confederate or Tea Party Republicans today, like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s, because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration, conservatism, on foreign policy is about, yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors, but only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today: Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s.

But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. 

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