Thom Aschi: 'The Army-McCarthy Hearings Documentary'

Source:Thom Aschi- U.S. Senate Oversight Committee Arm/McCarthy Hearing in 1953.

Source:The Daily Post

“Joseph McCarthy Congressional Hearings” 

From Thom Aschi 

The West with the help of Russia wins World War II and agrees to give Europe the resources that it needs to rebuild themselves after Nazism and what Italian Fascists did to the continent. The West, America and Europe was now somewhat at peace. But in America and Europe you had this huge liberal democracy in America and all of these mid-size developing social democracies in Europe, against this gigantic, totalitarian, Communist State in the Soviet Union in Russia. And the two dominant visions of the world being the Liberal Democratic America, versus Communist Russia.

And because of the emergence of the Cold War, Americans especially those who perhaps very well-educated about communism became afraid if it. And were worried about communism taking over America and Communists running America. And that is where Senator Joe McCarthy and his allies and colleagues in Congress starting in the House in 1947 with the Un-American Activities Committee and then in the Senate with Army-McCarthy hearings, emerge to look like they were stamping out Communists in the U.S. Government.

Senator Joe McCarthy becomes a political star very early on, especially as a junior Senator. He becomes Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee in the Senate in 1953 after Republicans win back Congress again, after only being in the Senate for five years. But his political skills at least early on and his power as a speaker gave him a following to move up quickly and a platform to investigate supposed Communists in the U.S. Government. And to look like the strongest anti-Communist around and to advance his political career. 

The Daily Caller: Nicholas Ballasy- 'Kathleen Sebelius: Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan ‘a Serious Proposal'

Source:The Daily Caller- White House correspondent Nicholas Ballasy.

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told The Daily Caller that the Medicare reform plan put forth by Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan is a “serious proposal” but President Obama has “made it clear” that it is not the right direction for the program.

In 2010, however, President Obama spoke highly of Ryan’s plan.

“I think Paul [Ryan], for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I’ve read it. I can tell you what’s in it and there’s some ideas in there that I would agree with but there’s some ideas we should have a healthy debate about because I don’t agree with them. The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close,” said President Obama at the GOP retreat on January 29, 2010." 

From The Daily Caller

I'm willing to give Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin: Chairman of the Budget Committee) credit for offering a serious plan when it comes to Medicare as well. I just don't think that's saying much. 

Giving Representative Ryan credit for offering a serious plan, is sort of like giving credit to a parking attendant who parks your car in the right spot and then remembers where he parked it and brings your car back when you are ready to leave and you reward him for that with a big tip.

Paul Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. If he's not offering serious plan when it comes to the government's finances, what the hell is he doing there at taxpayer expense. 

Representative Ryan would cut costs in Medicare by turning it into a voucher system and forcing seniors to get private health insurance. You could argue that would save Medicare a lot of money. But the problem you are saving money at the expense of quality health care and insurance and cutting back on choice for how seniors get their health insurance.

CSPAN: Barry Goldwater Speaks Out (1964)

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) campaigning for President in 1964.

Source:The Daily Post

“Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was shown in New Hampshire, campaigning for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination. Clips from speeches about foreign policy, the United Nations, Social Security, and economics were included. Also shown were video clips of New Hampshire residents being interviewed.

This film is titled Barry Goldwater Speaks Out and was produced by the Goldwater for President Committee.” 

From CSPAN 

The Goldwater Presidential Campaign movies might of not have been the most professionally made movies. But they were somewhat ahead of their time, because they were made by the Goldwater Campaign and gave Senator Goldwater the opportunity, 15-20 minutes on network television to layout exactly where he was on the issues and what he wanted to do as President. And to show Americans that he wasn’t crazy. That he wasn’t the person that President Johnson and his campaign were trying to make him look like. As well as other Democrats that were trying to make Senator Goldwater look crazy.

Senator Goldwater believed in things like individual freedom and personal responsibility. If I was alive and old enough to vote in 1964, instead of being born eleven years later, I would’ve voted for President Johnson, because of Civil Rights. That he believed individual rights over states rights.

Southern Democrats as well as some Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, believed in the opposite. And when President Johnson was against getting American Armed Forces involved in the Vietnam War, of course that changed later in 1965, but in 1964 President Johnson was the peace candidate, but Senator Goldwater wasn’t crazy. But a Classical Conservative who believed in individual freedom.

This film of course is a propaganda film by the Goldwater Campaign. An opportunity for them to layout where he is. Get out the message of what they want Americans to think about Barry Goldwater and not hear the other side. But this film does give people an idea of where Barry Goldwater was politically. That he believed in individual freedom and personal responsibility, peace through strength, that his foreign policy of course would’ve been different from President Johnson.

Senator Goldwater would’ve taken a much harder approach to the Vietnam War and would’ve not only had sent American troops there, but we would’ve been there to win the war, even for Vietnam itself. Which I believe would’ve been a very bad mistake, because that would’ve left us there to occupy that country, similar to Iraq. But with a President Goldwater we wouldn’t have seen the Great Society and perhaps more of a free market approach to solve those problems.

I would’ve love to of seen a presidential debate between President Johnson and Senator Goldwater. It wouldn’t have been an interesting as a presidential debate between Barry and President Kennedy. But it still would’ve been a very good debate, because we would’ve seen both men as they are. Rather than how the media portrays them and Americans would’ve had a clear choice in who to vote for.

US News & World Report: Simon Owens & Lauren Fox- 'The Differences Between Paul Ryan & Ayn Rand'

Source:The Washington Post- Objectivist author Ayn Rand.

"Much has been said about Paul Ryan's fondness for Ayn Rand, but the two actually have several ideological differences. Simon Owens discusses with Lauren Fox how the two differ on religion and abortion rights.

Read more about Ryan and Rand's differences over here:US News." 

From US News

I'm not going to say that Representative Paul Ryan is a culture warrior, big government Republican. At least not in the mold of a Rick Santorum. I don't believe he is and I don't know enough about him to say that anyway.

But Paul Ryan's respect for Ayn Rand has to do with her beliefs as it relates to economics. Ayn Rand was a Objectivist/Libertarian. Didn't want government involved in the economy at all and didn't believe that government had the right to force people to do anything with their money. Which is kinda where Paul Ryan is on economics, but not quite that libertarian, but they both believe that government shouldn't be regulating the economy, but they probably differ on every key social issue.

You can imagine and if Ayn Rand were alive today and looking to run for office or was an elected official, she probably wouldn't be a Republican. She wouldn't fit into today's GOP. She would be seen like an outcast like how they now treat Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul. Maybe she would be a Republican just to hold office. And live in an area, or state with a large libertarian population, where she didn't need the support of Christian-Conservatives in order to get elected and reelected.

Representative Ryan, fits in very well with today's GOP, except that he doesn't push social issues very much if at all. Neither does Mitt Romney, which could hurt this ticket with Christian-Conservatives in the fall, in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida. But Mitt, pretty much votes the party line.

Republicans like talking about Ayn Rand and telling people how much they respect her. But it's only economics they talk about when it comes to Ayn Rand. They don't believe in her philosophy of freedom of choice essentially. That people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. That government shouldn't interfere with how people live their own lives. Instead they believe that government should establish some type of moral code in how Americans should live. And live up to their ideals of what Americans should be and all of that. And thats just not Ayn Rand and hopefully not Paul Ryan either.

I wish even as a Liberal Democrat that people like Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand had more influence on today's Republican Party. Then they would be a real party of ideas, that didn't believe it needed to prevent people from voting, just because they believe they wouldn't vote Republican. Which is what Voter ID is all about. But this is still Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's GOP, a Christian-Conservative, big government party. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Richard Nixon Foundation: President Richard Nixon's 1972 State of The Union Address

Source:Richard Nixon Foundation- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) addressing a joint session of Congress in 1972. Vice President Spiro Agnew (Republican, Maryland) and Speaker of the House Carl Albert (Democrat, Oklahoma) in the background.

"January 20, 1972: President Nixon gives the State of the Union Address." 

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

President Richard Nixon was probably at the height of his power and popularity when he gave this speech in 1972. Election Night 1972 when he was overwhelmingly reelected with 60% of the voter and winning 499 states that year over Senator George McGovern, would be the only moment that could compete with his 1972 State of the Union. 

1971 was a very difficult year for President Richard Nixon politically. The Vietnam War was out of control, the New-Left antiwar-movement was on the march and the Nixon White House didn't seem to know how to handle that and President Nixon was paranoid about that and thinking that the Communist Party was the reason for the antiwar-movement in the country. And that's probably why The White House put together the so-called plumbers unit in The White House, as well as the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. 

But in early 1972, President Nixon was able to open up relationships with both the Soviet Union of Russia, as well as the People's Republic of China. The two Communist superpowers in the world. The economy was still strong at home and it looked like President Nixon was on his way to a strong reelection, early in 1972. 

Bill McCune: Barry Goldwater- 'An American Life'

Source:Bill McCune- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) Mr. Conservative. 

Source:The Daily Post 

“Barry Goldwater – An American Life – The quintessential biography of Barry Goldwater. The life of a 20th century renaissance man: Explorer, world renown photographer, cinematographer, pilot, businessman, Air Force General, U.S. Senator, Presidential candidate. Includes forty years of Goldwater home movies. This 96 minute film features Barry Goldwater, brother Bob Goldwater; lifelong friend Harry Rosenzweig, and historian/friend Lester Budge Ruffner.” 

From Bill McCune

Anyone whose not as familiar with American conservatism as much as they would like to be and would like to learn more about American conservatism, I have some suggestions on how to do that. Stop watching Fox News or using it as a main source of info, because it’s really mostly neoconservative and Tea Party populist commentary.

And don’t read publications that claim to be Conservative but are really Tea Party Nationalist, Big Government Republicanism, like Human Events. Unless you are interested in neoconservatism and Tea Party Nationalism.

But if you are really interested in learning about American conservatism, research Barry Goldwater because that’s what it’s about. Read the book Conscience of a Conservative that was written by Senator Goldwater in 1960. That book lays out the conservative vision for America.

American conservatism is about freedom and Americans being able to live independently of the state, especially the Federal Government, as far as being able to pay our own bills, our living expense and so-forth. And that Americans should be able to live their own lives as they see fit as long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing.

Senator Goldwater even believed in the right to collectively bargain, just as long as workers weren’t forced to join labor unions. Barry Goldwater’s politics didn’t change as some Republicans and others have charged today. The Republican Party has changed to the point that Senator Goldwater couldn’t win the Republican nomination for President today. Thats how far to the Right the party has moved.

When Senator Goldwater left Congress in 1987, the Republican Party was still the Conservative Party in America. Now it’s probably the farthest right party that we have in America and that’s different. Barry probably could win the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Even though they probably wouldn’t of liked his foreign policy views. Senator Goldwater wasn’t an isolationist, but other than that he would’ve fit in very well with the LP. And they would’ve taken him. But the Religious-Right would’ve tried to kick Senator Goldwater, Mr. Conservative out of the GOP.

Barry was a real Conservative. Senator Goldwater wasn’t interested in things like homosexuality and pornography, he had a gay grandson. And his famous line about gays in the military, was that he didn’t care if soldiers were gay or straight, but could they shoot straight. He also said that the religion doesn’t belong in politics as it relates to policy and that abortion isn’t a political issue. But freedom of choice issue. And that he didn’t want Big Government in his wallet or bedroom. All reasons why he wouldn’t fit into the Republican Party today.

Fox News: Art Laffer- '100 Million Now On Federal Welfare'

Source:Fox News- right-wing economist Art Laffer, talking to Fox News about Federal Welfare.

"Not counting social security, medicaid and many more. This is Obama's Utopian dream for America coming to fruition. The Cloward-Piven strategy in full bloom. Create a dependent class of slaves who will perpetuate their own enslavement by continually electing those who promise more handouts until we are all equally poor and miserable.

The Marxist redistribution of wealth sounds good until you run out of other people's money to redistribute. Then it all collapses as we saw with the Soviet Union. C.S.Lewis said  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

From USA Action News

I agree with Art Laffer I guess on one point and that's work requirements for Welfare. No where in America should Americans be getting more in income from our taxpayer funded government, then from working on their own. Even for people working minimum wage jobs and even working those jobs full-time, should be getting more in income, them people who don't work at all and are completely dependent on public assistance. Even if they had kids. I guess my approach to addressing this issue would be different from Mr. Laffer. 

I like the idea of subsidized employment where people on Welfare would go to work, even at minimum wage jobs, while they're in school or training to get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance all together and still be able to collect their public assistance payments, including their Welfare checks, while they're working. 

So under my system, if you are now on Welfare but then go to work even at let's say as fast food joint or a grocery store, you would get the income from working at your new job, but still keep your Welfare checks, as well as receive financial assistance to go back to school and get the training that you need to get yourself a good job and get off of public assistance all together. This is actually something that the Obama Administration was looking at in 2009-10 with the American Recovery Act to deal with the Great Recession. 

Under my system, people who are working regardless of the job and income, would get more money working, than not working. And anyone on Welfare would be required to not just go to work and look for work, but then take one of the first available jobs that they're qualified for, even if they have kids. While people who don't work and perhaps even don't want to work, would get less in income and eventually be kicked off of Welfare for failure to go to work, even if they have kids and could even lose their kids for failure to adequately support their kids.