John Fitzhamh: The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis

Source:FRS FreeState

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was awful for lots of reasons. For one the hostages who had to go through that ordeal. The hostages friends and families who had to go through that ordeal. The American People who had to go through this ordeal as well. With all the news coverage and news specials that was dedicated to covering the hostage crisis. The country had to not only go through this ordeal, but also the embarrassment that came with it. How weak America looked as a result, that a group of students Islamic Terrorists in a third-world country could essentially take a country hostage.

As well as take an American presidency hostage. President Carter as well and probably crushed whatever hope he had left in getting reelected in 1980. Especially with Senator Ted Kennedy announcing that he would run for president in the Democratic primary's. America in this period was already going through a very rough period especially economically. With double figure unemployment and interest as well as inflation rates, with another recession. In 1978 as well as 1980 and was facing several other issues that all commanded the attention of the Carter Administration. But when you have American hostages in a foreign country especially in a country thats not friendly with where we had already closed our embassy there, thats job one. And you stay on that job until you (pardon the pun) get the job done.

The Carter Administration was on top of the hostage crisis and I give them credit for that. Despite all of the other issues they were dealing with. Like looking weak to use as an example with Russia invading Afghanistan a neighbor of Iran in late 1979. To try to install a communist government there. There are lots of reasons that led to the Iranian Hostage Crisis, none of them justified taking innocent people hostage. But most of them America's fault and the Iranians were justified in being angry at America. The main reason I believe being the Shah of Iran who was installed by the United States and United Kingdom. And could be removed and replaced at anytime the U.S. and U.K. wanted to.

And the Shah even though he was pretty progressive on economic and foreign policy and was a very bright man, was brutal dictator in how he dealt with political dissent in Iran. And this was a reason why the Islamic Revolution started in 1978 and took over the Iranian Government in early 1979. And the Shah fled to Egypt and an Islamic Theocracy was formed in Iran in 1979. And of course the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November 4, 1979. And even though the United States officially declared War on Terror in late 2001 after 9/11, I believe we were already in this war over twenty years earlier.

I believe the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the start of it in 1979. The U.S. Marine Barracks Bombing in 1982. Libya's sponsoring of terrorism in the mid and late 1980s in Lockerbie Scotland and other areas as well. And then you go to the 1990s with the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. As well as Saudi Arabia in 1996 and the East African Embassy Bombings in 1998. America was already in the War on Terror long before 2001, we just hadn't officially declared it yet.

Battle Cry For Freedom: Richard Nixon on Democratic Failures in Leadership

Source:The FreeState

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. 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.

And 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: Milton Friedman: The Welfare Establishment

Source:The FreeState

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 need them. 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 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.

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

Source:The FreeState

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.

Margaret Thatcher: There is No Such Thing as Public Money

Source:The FreeState

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. In 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 and 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.

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

Source:The FreeState

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. At least in a political sense and of course its different in a religious context and of course there's neoconservatism. Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn't be funding.

And 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 Neoconservative, or Religious Conservative 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.

The Real News: Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?

Source:Free State MD

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Progressive Democratic Socialists in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours. Is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

Progressive Democratic President Harry Truman, tried to pass the Fair Deal in the 1940s. Which would be round two of the New Deal. Or round three after the New Deal and Great Society, if today’s Occupy Wall Street, or Coffee Party movement, the social democratic wing of the Democratic Party had their way. Making America’s version of the welfare state. Perhaps twice, or three times the size it is today and trying to make America look like Europe. With things like single payer health insurance, perhaps a national health care system with national hospitals. Universal pensions, universal public education, with the Federal Government taking a much larger role in funding our public schools. If not running them all together. Perhaps outlawing private schools. Universal higher education, so everyone can go to college that’s qualified for it. Perhaps nationalizing the banking system.

I mean the New Deal was considered radical in the 1930s and the Great Society was considered radical in the 1960s. But the Fair Deal, whether it came from Henry Wallace, or the modern Henry Wallace social democratic movement, would dwarf both agendas in America. Making our social insurance system a hell of a lot bigger than its today. And our taxes as hell of a lot higher than they are today. And this is just how it relates to economic policy and with a lot more regulations and taxes for our economy as well. Had Progressives, continued to push the idea of a Progressive Party which is what they would’ve called it when it started back in the Teddy Roosevelt era in 1912 and after that, maybe they’re a major political party today.

The Progressives had Henry Wallace in the 1940s and had they kept it going, Democratic Socialists would have their own party to call home today. And perhaps they would’ve left the Democratic Party. And Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, the Progressive Caucus and many others, would be in the Progressive Party today. Instead of representing the Far-Left of the Democratic Party today. But Franklin Roosevelt sort of co-opted parts of their agenda in the 1930s and the rest as they say is history.