The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

Source: The American Conservative- Daniel P. Moynihan.

Source:The New Democrat

I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.

That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.

What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.

So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.

Hoover Institution: Colin Dueck: The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today

Source:Hoover Institution- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States, with The Obama Doctrine.

Source:The New Democrat

President Barack Obama laid out The Obama Doctrine in the spring of 2011. He obviously wanted to move away from the Bush Administration’s neoconservative unilateral military force is always the first option policy. But he’s not an isolationist from the Far-Left, or anywhere else that sees America and the American military as a force of evil and the reason for violence around the world. This argument that President Obama is afraid to use the military, or is anti-military, simply doesn’t hold. He expanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009, the so-called Afghan surge. And committed us to the Libyan no fly zone in 2011. And tried to get Congressional approval to hit the Assad Regime from the air in 2013, but failed to get it.

To put it simply, Barack Obama is a liberal multi-lateral internationalist. That America should be strong at home both militarily and economically. So no one would want to, or would be able to attack the United States. But work with our allies abroad to deal with crisis’ oversees. That America should take a lead role around the world, but simply can’t lead the world and certainly not police the world, especially by ourselves. This idea that President Obama has pulled America back, is true. But he has pulled America back in the sense that we no longer try to do everything ourselves. We negotiate with others especially to avoid war and avoid invading countries simply because we see them as dangerous.

President Obama, is not some New-Left radical from the 1960s. Who never believes in the use of force and is a pacifist as well as an isolationist. And if you don’t believe that, just ask Code Pink, who do represent the Far-Left in America, at least when it comes to the American national security and foreign policy. Code Pink, has all sorts of issues when it comes President Obama on foreign policy and national security. President Obama, believes in defending our interests and defending our values around the world and even using our military to do that. But that even though we are the strongest power in the world, we aren’t the only one. And that we have partners who have responsibilities as well. Canada and Europe especially, but in the Middle East and Asia, as well.

I think the only thing that I agree with this right-wing anti-Obama presentation from the Hoover Institution here, is that President Obama, does believe domestic policy is related to foreign policy and national security. I would just put it differently. The President believes that for America to be as strong as it possibly can, we need to be as strong at home as possible as well. We need a strong economy, a modern infrastructure system, a modern immigration policy, reform our tax code, get off of foreign oil and gas, develop our own natural resources, expand American exports. So we have the resources that we need and the influence that we need to defend our national interests and values.

The National Interest: Leslie Gelb: What Should Be The Purpose of American Power?

The National Interest- Russian-Chinese Alliance?

Source:The New Democrat

I believe Les Gelb has the right attitude here and he’s someone who knows about American Power being the President of the Council of Foreign Relations. American Power, it depends on how you define it. I find think of most Americans when they think of American Power think of the U.S. Armed Forces and the broader National Security State. Like the Central Intelligence Agency, to use as an example. But our entire National Security Council is part of American Power. Which includes the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, as well as our Treasury Department.

See American Power, is our Armed Forces, and the National Security State, but it is also our economy. The stronger our economy is, the better our military can be. The more effective our economic sanctions against terrorist states can be. The main reason we won the Cold War against Russia, is because our economic strength. Their Marxist system simply failed their country. And their people had enough and you saw all of those non-ethnic Russian Soviet Republics break up and form their own countries. America, probably had a stronger military than Russia during the Cold War. But our economy and economic system was the main weapon there.

Now the purpose of American Power again using the NSC and economy to make America as strong as it can be. So we never have to worry about our own security. At least in the sense that someone could invade us, or wipe out a section of our country, or even attack us from the air. Which is where we’ve always have been at least since Pearl Harbor. The purpose of American Power is not to rule the world, or even police the world. At least by ourself, but to use our power to more than adequately defend us when needed. And to advance our interests and values that a lot of the world already shares.

I agree with Les Gelb, that America is and should be the strongest leader in the world. Simply because we are and there isn’t another democratic developed nation in the world that is capable of replacing us, or even coming close. But being the strongest leader in the world and the most powerful country economically and everything else, is different from being the leader of the world. And having to take all the risks and pay all the price when some crisis develops around the world. While everyone else debates what America should be doing at the debating society known as the United Nations. While they don’t do anything themselves.

Liberty in Our Time: G. Edward Griffin: 'More Deadly Than War: The Communist Revolution in America'

Source: Liberty In Our Time- G. Edward Griffin.

Source:The New Democrat

Communists, at least self-described Communists have never had any real power in America. The only real movement they had in America that was able to gain any momentum, popularity and gain attention, was the Black Panther and Black Power movement of the 1960s. That was made up of more than African-Americans, but other Americans as well. The New-Left of the 1960s, had both a social democratic and Communist movement in it. But Socialists, at best today whether they self-describe themselves that way, or not, are at best 15-20% of the population. Marxist-Communists, again self-described, or not, are not even ten-percent in America.

When you look at third-parties in America, there have only been two third-parties that have gained any prominence and traction in the last twenty-years or so. The Libertarian Party, that has a large growing movement in and outside of the Republican Party. And the social democratic Green Party, that has a growing movement in and outside of the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders movement, is essentially the Green Party right now ideologically. And the title of this film is The Communist Revolution in America and it came out in 1969. And yet who are these Communist revolutionaries who are going to put this revolution together.

What this film really looks like to me, is a right-wing propaganda film, or at least a right-wing perspective and the opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That, "civil rights freedom fighters who non-violently for the most part fought for equal rights for African and other Americans in the 1960s, really weren't freedom fighters at all. They were really Russian agents working for the Communist Party in Russia to spread communism in America." This looks like a lot of, right-wing garbage to put it mildly. Anglo-Saxon mostly Americans who in 1969 of course were still angry about losing all of those civil rights battles of the 1960s.

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin: 'John Kasich is The Un-Trump'

Source:The Washington post-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t vote for John Kasich for president perhaps on any circumstances. Unless there was some reason why only Republicans were running for president. But what I’ve seen from him so far looks like he’s the best the Republican Party has and is someone who they desperately need if they’re going to win Latinos back and win back the White House. The Republican Party, won’t win the White House back until they win Latinos, Asians, Jews and get closer to Democrats when it comes to women. They’re Anglo-Saxon Southern-Protestant rural base is dying off and they know that.

Governor Scott Walker, simply too far-right on social issues. Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, allowing for employers and other groups to deny gays access simply because they’re gay, no abortion under any circumstances, he’s flipped on immigration and is no longer in favor of a policy to deal with the 10-15 million illegal immigrants other than perhaps sending them home. So he’s basically the Rick Santorum of 2016 and would have a hard time winning outside of the Bible Belt and would have a hard time even winning his home state.

Donald Trump, is nothing more than a one man reality show and if he still looks like a contender and December, I’ll consider apologizing. Jeb Bush, doesn’t want to be his brother, or father and yet its hard to tell how he differs from G.W. at least on economic policy. He now says the Iraq War was a mistake, but blind people could see that. He doesn’t seem to know what he wants to be right now other than what he was in Florida as Governor. But not a lot of people know what kind of Governor he was. He might end up being a weaker frontrunner than Mitt Romney.

Marco Rubio, the younger Jeb Bush? He’s G.W. and Dick Cheney when it comes to foreign policy and national security. He hasn’t come out with much of an economic policy yet. On immigration, Senator Rubio, Governor Bush and Governor Kasich, are where the party needs to be to win back Latinos and probably Asians as well. But all three men are going to have to do better than that and offer a vision to win those groups back. But Kasich, is a little different. Blue-collar guy from Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nine-term U.S. Representative and two-term Governor of Ohio which is a swing state. One of the lead authors in Congress of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

John Kasich, has real Washington experience and real experience outside of Washington. As well as private sector experience that he had after he left Congress in 2001. He’s not a fan of same-sex marriage, but wouldn’t do anything to stop it and has said he’s even been to a gay wedding. This all coming from a center-right Republican. Republicans, have to win Ohio back, as well as breakthrough the Democratic lock on Asians and Latinos. They also need to win back blue-collar voters regardless of race, or ethnicity. Kasich, might be the only Republican who can do that. And if I’m Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush, Kasich would be the person I would be most concern about.

The National Interest: Paul R. Pillar: Right & Wrong Lessons From the Iraq War

Source:Global Public Square-

Source:The New Democrat

I believe I know how Peter Beinart, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry, feel about the 2003 Iraq War. See, I supported it to. I thought it would be a good opportunity to one, eliminate a brutal Middle Eastern dictator in Saddam Hussein. Perhaps one of the top three most evil dictators of the 20th Century. I at least would put him in the same bastard class as Joe Stalin and Adolph Hitler. And the idea of Saddam being allowed to continue to had weapons of mass destruction to be used against his own people, or use them against others, or perhaps sell them to terrorists, was unacceptable to me.

I wish I had the foresight of Dick Durbin. Who when was one of I believe twenty-two Senate Democrats who voted against the war. Sometimes it helps to be in Congress especially with a national security role and serving on one of those committees. And then maybe I would’ve seen the same lack of evidence that Saddam still even had WMD and a competent military, let alone a nuclear weapons program. Remember, the original justification for invading Iraq in 2002-03 and original being the key word here, is to prevent Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Not to save a large country from a brutal dictator.

The lessons for Iraq, I think are pretty simple. Don’t invade a country unilaterally without a plan for the aftermath. What the country could look like in the short and long-terms after the regime is kicked out. Once you eliminate another country’s government, you then have the responsibility for governing that country until they can do that for themselves. That is what occupation is about.

If you’re going to invade another country simply to eliminate a brutal authoritarian regime and that country is not currently a threat to you, don’t do it unilaterally. Make the case the case to the country’s neighbors and your allies that the regime has to go, so we can save the people there from future murders and a genocide. Build a coalition to not only take out the regime, but to occupy the country in the short-term in the aftermath. Work with the opposition on the ground if you can and get their assistance.

The last lesson and I think might be the most important, other than believing the current evidence on the ground and not taking out the weapons inspectors before they’ve completed their work and this has more to do with the Iraq Civil War than anything else, is don’t try to fight for a country that won’t fight for themselves. One of the reasons why we’re still trying to assist Iraq twelve years after we knocked the Hussein Regime out of power, is because the Bush Administration set no deadlines. They said we would be there as long as we need to be. The new Iraq Government took that as forever and didn’t do their part to make sure that their country could be secure.

I know I said last lesson already, but I’ll close with this. And you can talk about hindsight all you want, but we had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. They were finding nothing and again I go back to the original justification point for the original reason to invade Iraq which was to eliminate their WMD and nuclear weapons program. But as the years went on the Bush Administration kept coming up for new reasons for invading Iraq.

And they finally settled on Saddam was evil and brutal and needed to go. If they took that to Congress even with a Republican House and a divided Senate, their Iraq War Resolution would’ve have never gotten approved. The American people wouldn’t have backed it. We know now that the original reason for invading Iraq that Congress and the country backed was never justified and backed up even at the time of the war.
Source:CBS News

The National Review: Amy Schumer & The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Source:National Review- Free Speech Advocate.

Source:The New Democrat

Cenk Uygur, from The Young Turks, who is about as far-left as someone on the New-Left can get in America, I believe had the best line in this video. When he said that political correctness makes actual racism and real racial issues look small and non-important. He used the boy who cried wolf analogy. Which is really what a lot of this is about. It is one thing to disagree with what someone said about this person, or this group, but it’s another to say that person is a racist, or what they said was racist. Especially when what they said is accurate and funny at the same time.

If someone, or a group of people, whoever the person is, or the group of people is, has an issue, or weakness and someone accurately points that out and does it in a humorous way, what does the target, or targets of the critique and satire have to complain about. All the comedian, or commentator is doing is making an accurate statement and doing it in a humorous way. Also if someone says something that isn’t true about a person, or group, are they bigot, or are they just wrong? I mean when people have problems with the truth and reality, that is when they need to either become alcoholics and escape reality on a regular basis, or improve themselves and work on their shortcomings.

If I say that a lot of Southern Anglo-Saxon Christian-Conservatives got stuck in a time machine and were taken out of the year 1952, when women stayed at home and served their men, gays were locked in the closet and African-Americans, were second class citizens and served as servants to Caucasians. And brought up to 2015 when all Americans were free and able to live their own lives and were no longer partying like it was 1952 and instead lived in the real world that is modern America, would that make me a racist, or anti-Christian, or would I just be stating a fact and using humor to do that? Well that statement is right and there’s humor there. So what do Anglo Christian-Conservatives have to complain about?

Now use that analogy about Saudi Arabia as a country. A very conservative Muslim country, to say the least, just as water is wet and the North Pole is cold. If I said that Saudi-Muslims were stuck in the 1500s and view women as property of men. Women , aren’t even allowed to show their faces and bodies in public, they are not even allowed to drive and I could go on, but it would be very depressing. Now if I say this, am I a racist for making fun of Middle Eastern people and am I anti-Muslim, for making a joke about Muslims, or am I simply just stating a fact? Well again what part of that statement to you disagree with. Of course that statement is accurate and even funny.

The whole political correctness movement and their political correctness warriors, sound like a bunch of con men and con women. They’re not political correctness warriors, but fascist bullshit artists. On Planet PC. You can make fun of Christians, especially if they’re Caucasian and Southern and rural. You can make all the accurate and inaccurate jokes about them that you want to, but if you say something that is funny and correct about non-Caucasian-Christians, even if you’re correct, they label you as a bigot. And try to get you shut down. You can make all the fat men jokes you want, unless that man happens to be a racial, or ethnic minority. But it you make a fat women joke, you’re a sexist. Unless that women is a right-winger.

Political correctness warriors, need to go back to The Valley, or San Francisco, or New York City and sit down and smoke a joint. Just don’t buy it from an undercover cop, unless you’re in Washington State, Colorado, or Maryland. And chill, as well as develop a sense of humor. And learn that Caucasians and Christians, aren’t the only people who can be made fun of in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people with all the diversity and liberal free speech protections that we have. Funny accurate jokes, aren’t bigoted. But they’re funny and accurate regardless of the people who they’re targeted at.