Firing Line With William F. Buckley: House Minority Leader Gerald Ford- 'Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer? (1968)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

“Gerald Ford had been in the unenviable position of becoming the House Republicans’ leader following the 1964 debacle, in which his troops were reduced to a minority of 140, as against 295 Democrats. Then again, as Mr. Buckley suggests, there was nowhere to go but up, and the GOP had rebounded nicely in 1966. Mr. Ford-as the nation would learn more extensively a few years later on-is not the liveliest speaker, but he does a good job of explaining what he and his colleagues mean by “constructive alternatives” to the Democrats’ initiatives, and there are some good exchanges-e.g., on the minimum wage, and on Hubert Humphrey. WFB: “And [Humphrey] may have an interesting future.” GF: “Well, not as interesting as he would like, but it is going to be interesting.”

From the Hoover Institution

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. 

After 1964, Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress with 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

After 1964 House Republicans, a very small minority party, only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford, who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States, who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this. 

Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor, but the Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

After 1960 the Republican Party had been thrown out-of-power, when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. 

Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections, but Congressional Republicans lost seats in the House and Senate in 1962, when they were a small minority party to begin with. The Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

After 1964 House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful, because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

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

U.S. Global Leadership Coalition: 'Barbara Bush on The Importance of Foreign Assistance'

Source:U.S. Global Leadership Coalition- Barbara P. Bush talking about foreign aide.

"October 3, 2011 - Barbara Pierce Bush, former President George W. Bush's daughter, says that reducing foreign aid would have "enormous implications" for the United States.

Visit:The Daily Caller  to watch the rest of this video and read the full article." 

From the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition

I believe in foreign aid if it's done right and goes where the money is needed to help the most people as possible, that can't survive without it, people who aren't a threats to America, especially if they get a chance at life from the start, enough quality food, quality health care, quality education, etc. And as long as it's targeted to the countries that can use this aid to help their people: developing countries with responsible national government's. 

Foreign aid shouldn't be for developed countries that can take care of themselves. Or for countries that sponsor terrorism and oppress their people. Iran would and Syria would be excellent examples of that, but South Africa would be an example of where foreign aid can pay off and not only benefit South Africans, but benefit America as well and make sure that we continue as valuable allies. 

Bad foreign aid would be foreign aid that goes to countries and then they either sponsor terrorism. Or harbor terrorists in their countries, where those terrorists are threats to America. Pakistan would be a good example of that and its time America reexamines its relationship with Pakistan as well. 

Where the foreign aid goes to corrupt government's and those people pocket the money, or give that money to terrorists, Africa would be a good example of that as well, that would be bad foreign aid. Foreign aide should be about helping developing countries, develop: Central America, South America, Africa, wherever, helping them develop their security so they can defend themselves from terrorism or other countries. 

Columbia would be an excellent example of t where foreign aid can help both the Columbian people, but America as well with debt relief, helping them sustain their federal budgets so their government's can meet the needs of the country. 

As long as foreign aide is going to developing, but responsible, unified, and constitutional government's and where the foreign aide actually gets to the people who need it, I'm in favor of foreign aide, because it helps them, but is good for America, because it creates new partners and markets for America, which is a plus for everyone involved.

Euro News: Prime Minister David Cameron- 'We Will Never Join The Euro'

Source:Euro News- Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative, England) United Kingdom.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (but not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"There have been tough words from the British prime minister at the annual Conservative Party conference, where David Cameron defended his government's economic policies. "The threat to the world economy and to Britain is as serious as in 2008 when world recession loomed. The euro zone is in crisis, the French and the German economies have slowed to a standstill. Even mighty America is questioned about her debts. The only way out of a debt crisis is to deal with your debts. Euro News" 

From Euro News

It's actually probably a good thing right now that the United Kingdom is not part of the European Monetary Union right now. And forget about the politics or national and ethnic pride that Brits have. The states in the European Union are going through far worst fiscal problems than Britain. 

For one, Britain acted on there's a lot earlier and the Cameron Government has paid a large price for that politically. And the European Union is still trying to decide how to move on their debt and deficit issues and get them under control. 

Greece is probably in worst shape then anybody and having to deal with the International Monetary Fund (or IMF) Had Britain been part of the EMU all along, they would probably be in the same shape as Europe, because they wouldn't of ever been able to act as quickly. 

So when Prime Minister David Cameron says that Britain will never be part of the Euro (at least while he's Prime Minster of the United Kingdom) he's dead on and monetary policy is just one reason. 

Britain used to be an empire the most powerful country in the world. That of course has lost a lot of that power the last two hundred years. While the European Union has gained a lot of power the last sixty years and if they were to ever unify and become a nation state would be one of the top two most powerful countries in the World. After the get their debt and deficits under control. 

The United Kingdom still sees itself as a world power and to a certain extent still is. More influential than Germany, France, Italy and their other European neighbors on their own and want to hold on to that power on their own. Besides, the United Kingdom just Mainland Britain, is made up four people's with their own lands: England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland. And at least three of them would like their independence from the United Kingdom. Similar feeling that Americans have before their Revolutionary War that led to the United States being formed. 

The last things that the English, Scottish, Welch, and Irish want is to go from being part of one empire. In the United Kingdom to another in the European Union, or United Federation of Europe, or whatever Europe would call themselves. But the United Kingdom would be a great ally with this new Federal Republic, if Europe ever united, because they have similar interests and issues they both have to deal with. 

As long as the the European Union has the EMU or one day even unifies, the UK will still be the UK a separate country on their own. As they should be, they do very well on their own. And are still a world power with plenty of influence and are still the United States strongest ally not including Canada.

The Federalist Society: Richard Epstein- Redistribution of Wealth

Source:The Federalist Society- Cato Institute Fellow Richard Epstein.

"The Federalist Society presented this panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2009. Panelists included Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University Law School; Mr. Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Editor of Forbes Magazine; Prof. Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law School; Mr. Andrew L. Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union; and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as the moderator. Part 3 of 11." 

From The Federalist Society

If you understand the actual definition of redistribution of wealth and not the political definition of it, you know that there's always been at least some amount of wealth redistribution. And chances are if you live in America, that you believe in at least some form of wealth redistribution. 

If you go by the political definition of wealth redistribution, then you got this idea that it's about robbing the rich to give to the poor. But again if you know the actual definition of wealth redistribution, you know that it essentially means to take money from one area to give to another. And if done right, you take money from an area that has a large surplus of money to give to an area that doesn't have enough. 

To use as examples- building schools, military bases, roads, bridges, etc, is wealth redistribution, because you are taking money from New York to build a road or bridge in Alabama. (Or use whatever two states you want to use) Or if people are unemployed and are collecting Unemployment Insurance, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to give that money to people who are unemployed. 

Or with Social Security and Medicare, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to help finance the retirements of people who are retired. 

These are all forms of wealth redistribution and if you are against these things, then you would be in a small minority. And even in a small minority in the Republican Party. The question to me is not whether we have wealth redistribution or not, because of course we do and have always had, the questions for me would be, how much of it should we have. And what we should be using it for. 

Since wealth redistribution is usually talked about in how it relates to poverty, I'll focus on that in this post and go from there and to start out I'm not in favor of taking money from the rich or anyone else, to take care of the poor. 

What I am in favor of is using some of this revenue, to help the poor empower themselves to become self- sufficient and that gets to temporary financial assistance, education, and Job Placement, things like Welfare to Work (or TANF) as well as retraining low-income workers on the job so they can move up in their company's and not be stuck working dead in jobs their whole lives. 

We should also be retraining unemployed workers so they can can get jobs in other fields, especially if they lost a job or in a job in a field thats gone and is not coming back as a result of free trade or company relocation. And doing all of these things cost resources and the money has to come from somewhere. 

And I rather take that money from America then borrow it from Russia or China. It's not a question of whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and we've always had, but it's a question of how much wealth redistribution we should have. And what's the purpose of it and how we can best spend this money that will do the most good for the country. 

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.