Those conservatives, and particularly prominent conservative pundits, who have insisted upon second-guessing President Donald Trump’s recent decisions to unleash our military toward the objective of reestablishing America’s preeminence on the world stage utterly sicken me. It’s been well-established that Mr. Trump is not an ideological conservative, but it escapes me why even an ideological conservative would go to such lengths to criticize Trump for achieving arguably more conservative measures in 80 days than most presidents achieve in four years. On April 6, the United States launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack that had killed dozens of civilians. Even Trump’s most vociferous liberal detractors found it difficult to criticize him for ordering the strike, given the atrocious nature and scope of Syria’s act.
In a time where naked parasitic leftism is running wild, libertarians are faced with a choice. They can either stand and fight against this menace, or wave the white flag of surrender. This seems like it would be an easy choice for any lover of liberty, but if you listen to certain voices within the movement, cowardice is the most noble of options. “The left-wing combatants claim to be anarchists, and yet are furthering the state,” commentator Dan Sanchez wrote in a FEE column. “The right-wing combatants claim to be for liberty, and yet are putting liberty in danger. If these conflicts continue to escalate, no matter which side “wins,” liberty will lose.” Sanchez’s commentary is indicative of the academic, elitist, ivory tower mindset that plagues the libertarian movement. This mindset fosters passive inaction and stagnation. It has gotten especially pernicious since Ron Paul retired from public life. Isolated in his bubble, Sanchez and others like him have forgotten what the people need right now. They don’t need a…
On Friday, we published an article titled ‘Cato VP Attacks Ron Paul, Calls His Ideas a “Hideous Corruption Of Libertarian Ideas”‘ written by senior contributor Alex Witoslawski. As the article was beginning to gain traction and go viral, Facebook decided to censor it—issuing temporary bans for anyone who merely shared the writing. Dozens of people have reported being censored immediately after sharing the article. Some of the error warnings suggested that malware could have been involved, but that was a deception. Rather than admitting to their practice of muzzling speech, Facebook apparently gives random error messages to baffle users and throw them off the trail. Most of the people afflicted were put out of commission for two days, unable to share links to content on the social media platform. From a strictly libertarian perspective, Facebook has the right to act in completely abhorrent and disgusting ways. Conversely, we have the right to expose the truth about this entity and work to build consumer pressure against their reprehensible policies until…
President Trump insisted throughout the presidential campaign (and even after being elected) that NATO was “obsolete”, mainly focusing on the fact that many of our European allies don’t put forward the appropriate proportion of their GDP toward their defense budgets and on the claim that the transatlantic organization doesn’t do enough to combat terrorism (the latter a far less fair criticism than the former, especially given the fact that the only time the group has invoked its Article 5 mutual defense provision was to assist the United States in the wake of the September 11th attacks). President Trump recently abruptly reversed course, now saying that NATO was no longer obsolete. But Donald Trump actually was right about NATO obsolescence, although right for the wrong reasons. It’s not because we no longer need NATO as a bulwark against Russia (we do) and not because NATO is no longer useful in the age of international terrorism (it is), but it is “obsolete” because an increasingly authoritarian Turkey has become an…
Political ideologies are like gas prices – everybody has an idea of what they should be, but in reality they are constantly moving to reflect the priorities of the surrounding marketplace. In today’s hyperpartisan culture, trying to pinpoint someone’s ideological niche seems of utmost importance. Most folks act like their property value depends on whether the new neighbors’ car sports a “coexist” bumper sticker or an NRA decal. But as Trump’s brand of moderate populism permeates the GOP and Bernie Sanders takes the reins of the Democrat rebuild, it’s apparent that the goalposts are moving again.
The concept of Presidential Doctrine dates back to when James Monroe adopted a posture of anti-European colonialism in the western hemisphere. Since that time many presidents have come and gone without leaving a signature stamp on the attitude and behavior of our nation vis a vis foreign policy though many have at most sought to merely modify pre-existing positions. Theodore Roosevelt took Monroe’s doctrine and mutated it into the Roosevelt Corollary which would later be reversed by his fifth cousin, Franklin Roosevelt who adopted a Good Neighbor policy toward those nations in the Central and South America. In relatively short time, the neocon wing of the Republican Party hijacked our government and set about reinvigorating the interventionist ambitions of Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick Diplomacy. Under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, America ceased speaking softly and carrying a big stick; it raised its voice and started actively using the stick in places like Grenada and Panama and various other Latin countries that failed to fall in line with…
In a legal powwow with their lawyers, Hollywood Communists, forever known as “The Hollywood Ten,” who were summoned by Congress to testify about their political affiliations in 1947, were given the hypothetical question about freedom of expression for all by their attorneys. When asked if they believed in freedom of speech for Communists, the immediate answer from all was a resounding “yes.” Some of the group even supported the next hypothetical question of whether “fascists” were eligible for the same free speech protections. But John Howard Lawson, the uber-sectarian head of the Hollywood Party, advised otherwise, saying, “The answer is that you do not believe in freedom of expression for fascists,” only Communists because what we “say is true,” and what the fascists say “is a lie.” And off Lawson went to testify before Congress in which he defended freedom of expression for all.
Newton’s Third Law of physics states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Though commonly understood to apply to physical interactions between objects in action, this law is as true in boxing and baseball as it is in politics. Midterm elections are often a down-ballot repudiation of a president and ruling party’s policy initiatives. This accounts for the Democratic Party’s drubbings in 2010 and 2014. It accounts for the humiliating dressing down they received at the hands of the forgotten men and women of the American electorate in November of last year. It accounts for the vehement violence perpetrated by the Antifa pawns of George Soros and other more ambiguous movers and shakers in the elite echelons of the “progressive” power structure. We got hints of liberal vitriol-in-action during the election campaign when paid provocateurs invaded Trump rallies and attacked their peaceful counterparts. At the inauguration, we saw more as masked thugs destroyed storefronts and set fires and assaulted anyone who dared stand up to…
Federal judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos – on a mission to “persist” perhaps – ruled last week that Texas’ voter ID law not only discriminates against minorities and/or the poor and/or the “disenfranchised” – but does so intentionally. That the judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama probably has nothing at all to do with her myopic legal views or her contrived and misguided ruling. It’s unfortunate that ideologically driven judicial rulings attempting to satisfy a political agenda continue to remain obstructions to justice and the expressed will of the people. For the past ten years, voters elected Republicans to both houses of the Texas Legislature and U.S. Congress by large margins as the means of achieving a very specific set of policy ideas and agenda items – one of which was implementing voter ID at the ballot box. Those legislators have gone to Austin and Washington, D.C. as representatives of the people who elected them and who hold them to their promises to carry out the badly needed reforms to…
Russian dissidents are usually proponents of American-style libertarianism. Lech Walesa loved Ronald Reagan, as did prisoners in Gulags, who would risk it all and cheer whenever the guards would counter-productively broadcast Reagan speeches. Having been subjected to big government run amok in Russia, dissidents who immigrate to the United States appreciate what is exceptional about American society. The same can be said of Masha Gessen, a former Russian dissident and writer-in-residence at Oberlin College. In a period where other anti-Trump activists refuse to consider the arguments of the other side and seek to deny those “fascists” the right to express pro-Trump sentiments, Gessen has a libertarian tinge.
In 2012, President Obama laid down his now-infamous “red line” speech against Bashar al-Assad, warning that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would result in “enormous consequences” from the United States – consequences that America proved both utterly unwilling and unable to follow through on when Assad inevitably used chemical weapons against rebel forces near Damascus in 2013, killing many hundreds of civilians, including over a hundred children. But when Assad decided to wantonly use chemical weapons again in 2017 there was a new President in the White House, and, 59 Tomahawk cruise missile strikes against Al Shayrat airbase later, the message was sent (“Don’t gas babies…”) and a former president’s red line was finally enforced by his successor (albeit about four years after the fact). But it now seems that President Trump has laid down his own “red line” – this one against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). But unlike his predecessor, he seems willing to swiftly respond to provocation, as indicated by the…
A good balance of business and pleasure is good for companies. It improves morale and helps reduce employee burnout. However, companies that have chosen to mix business with politics have, in most cases, experienced an adverse effect. It’s common knowledge that employees shouldn’t discuss politics when they’re on the clock. In attempts to create a safe and respectful corporate environment, human resources discourage such discussions, as not everyone shares the same political ideology. Which begs the question – why do some U.S. companies promote their political affiliations or stances on certain issues? If history is a past predictor of future events, why would any CEO risk their company’s reputation by affiliating themselves with a specific political party? Knowing the United States is nearly split between republicans and democrats, why would any business gamble on aligning their company with politics, as they’re sure to lose customers who oppose the stance a business should take? Businesses are learning that when they integrate politics within their corporate structure, it poses a great…
Since the president started strafing Syria, it has become evident that Trump’s favorite offspring needs to be booted from the People’s House. The British press, more irreverent than ours, seconded the broad consensus that Ivanka had nagged daddy into doing it. For the kids: the First Daughter was, purportedly, devastated by the (unauthenticated) images of a suspected gas attack in Syria. Brother Eric Trump confirmed it: “Sure, Ivanka influenced the Syria strike decision.” White House Spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t deny it. Eric had headed back to the Trump Organization, as he promised during the campaign. Ivanka just wouldn’t go. Who could fail to notice that the First Daughter, a cloistered, somewhat provincial American princess, has been elevated inappropriately in the White House, while First Lady Melania, a cosmopolitan steel magnolia, has been marginalized?
Donald Trump faced the first true test of his Presidency this past week, and failed abysmally. After a chemical attack in Syria that was attributed without any real evidence to President Bashir al-Assad, Trump threw his relatively non-interventionist stance in the trash immediately to appease the neocons and other Washington D.C. swamp rats, launching airstrikes against the Syrian government. While Trump faltered, a truly masculine leader with big hands reacted like a professional. Vladimir Putin refused to budge to the neocon war machine and throw Assad under the bus at their behest. He refused to feed into the globalist propaganda narratives pushing the world toward conflict. He didn’t care that the western media was making him or Assad out to be bogeymen. Putin urged for restraint while Trump was rushing to war. He stood strong under the pressure while Trump whimpered. Putin told Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu that “it was unacceptable to make groundless accusations against anyone without conducting a detailed and unbiased investigation.”
President Trump ordered airstrikes against Syrian airfields after claiming that Assad′s military was responsible for sarin gas attacks against civilian targets. Even if Assad gave the order, compassion for Syrian civilians is a poor reason to bomb Syria. The only time the US should use military force is to protect the US or to protect an ally. Often in spite of the President′s best intentions and the military′s best efforts, bad things happen with our missiles. Targets are often chosen based on faulty intel and missiles stray off course because of faulty guidance systems. Even though the Russians were told in advance of the missile strikes, and even though the Russians probably warned Assad′s men of the attack, at least seven people died as a result of the strikes. Future attacks will likely yield even more fatalities.
Since before the legislation known as “Obamacare” was even passed, Republicans have vowed to oppose the Democratic Party’s legislative attempts to take on healthcare. Since passage, it has been one of the few topics most Republicans could agree on to some degree. When opposing former President Barack Obama’s re-election and then-former-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republicans pushed the message of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Given all the fiery and loud rhetoric that has remained consistent over the years, many expected more out of a Republican Party that controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. With control of Congress, the party has the votes to put forth an ambitious plan to restore the free markets and back the government out of the healthcare industry. It is something that President Trump would undoubtedly sign.
Once during an interview, conservative actor Brian Dennehy was asked if he ever questioned the intellectual foundations of the Cold War; he answered in the affirmative, citing as an example his denouncement of the “Domino Theory” while in high school during the height of the Cold War, the early 1960s. Whether true or not, and one should bear in mind that on occasion, Dennehy has claimed to have fought in Vietnam when in actuality he was stationed in the Pacific, this is an example of how the Domino Theory has been mocked and blamed for leading the U.S. into the quagmire of Vietnam.
Following President Trump’s airstrike in Syria, where over 50 cruise missiles were launched at a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical attack, something remarkable happened: Trump’s “America First” base revolted. First, #SyriaHoax started trending on Twitter, which called into question whether Assad’s government in Syria was responsible for the gas attack – many believed that it was a false flag attack by either Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or CIA-backed rebels meant to draw the U.S. into war, similar to the false-flag chemical attack in 2013. As Ron Paul said, “does anyone believe that on the eve of peace talks, just after the White House said the Syrian people should choose their own leaders, that Assad would launch a gas attack to turn the whole world against him?”
As the Trump Administration continues to try to figure where it wants to go with healthcare, his team at the Treasury is readying tax reform. Unfortunately, much like the Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s film Suicide Squad, initial optimism is facing the bitter reality of horrible early reviews. After all, during the campaign there was much to like from Candidate Trump. He campaigned on cutting both income and corporate taxes while eliminating the estate tax all together He frequently bragged that it was going to be the “biggest tax cut since Reagan” (reality of the Gipper’s record aside). Trump focused more on economic growth than the deficit and even though he wrongly supported tariff increases in order to “win on trade,” he frequently rejected the creation of new revenue mechanisms.
When news broke Thursday night that President Donald Trump had launched airstrikes in war torn Syria, the response from across America was swift. President Trump, a longtime critic of Syrian intervention, had gone against his own word after chemical attacks were allegedly carried out by the Syrian government under President Bashir al-Assad. Senator Rand Paul denounced the airstrikes in a series of tweets.
Politics has its reputation as being extremely polarizing and many everyday Americans avoid it as a result. For some, it’s a simple game of partisan politics. For many, it’s a matter of life and death, with policy proposals and enacted plans affecting their everyday lives. Because of this, many issues are taken seriously and sometimes to a point of extreme intensity. One of those topics is vaccination. At first glance, many would be caught off guard with this fact. Why is guarding against disease such a controversial topic? Most humans agree better health is a good thing.
Writing for Vox, Carlos Maza claims that “Comedians have figured out the trick to covering Trump.” It should come as no shock that someone writing for a bastion of semi-functional retardation like Vox believes himself to be today’s Juan Ponce de Leon and political satire is his long sought after Fountain of Youth. Despite Maza’s oblivious enthusiasm for the trivial and obvious, this is no huge discovery. He’s no pioneering and chivalrous conquistador, he’s the optimistic little boy who finally found a pony in a pile of excrement. Maza’s faux eureka moment is a microcosm of what has become of the Left and it is a harbinger of where it is going. (Like Seinfeld, I hate anyone who ever had a pony. Moving along.)
Senator Tom Cotton has become one of most ambitious warhawks in not only the United States Senate, but all of Congress. Perhaps only rivaled by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, he seldom misses an opportunity to push an aggressive tone and call for an escalation of action. Syria is no different.
The nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch by President Donald Trump has put Democrats in a difficult position. After Republicans successfully blocked Obama nominee Merrick Garland, Democrats are prepared to return the favor for Republicans. The threat of the nuclear option still lingers and Democratic opposition to Gorsuch could trigger Republicans to use it, resulting in a greater headache over time. But Senator Elizabeth Warren, the progressive hero who backed Wall Street favorite Hillary Clinton, has other concerns: the Russians.
United States Senator Angus King is a popular politician in Maine and has become an important figure in Senate politics. As an Independent, he has successfully portrayed himself as standing above the partisan fray. Despite his liberal leanings, establishment Democrats have a troubled relationship with liberal Independents in Maine. In 1993, Senator King abandoned his lifelong Democratic Party registration and ran as an Independent, edging the Democratic candidate a year later by a percentage point. Four years later, he would easily win re-election 59-19% over Republican James Longley, Jr.
The Obamacare repeal was supposed to be a bigger moment for the Trump Administration and Republican majorities. Since passage of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, conservative Republicans have used it as a rallying point for the right. The federal overreach in the healthcare market has been detrimental and thus should be repealed, with either a Republican replacement or the free market altogether. Instead, the Republicans failed. Speaker Paul Ryan tried to rule with an iron fist like his predecessor John Boehner and failed miserably. The package advanced by party leadership was labeled “Obamacare Lite” by conservatives and libertarians who felt the legislation didn’t actually repeal Obamacare. When concerns were raised and objections made, the response was to simply get in line.
Senator Rand Paul has had an interesting relationship with President Donald Trump, dating back to the days of being a longshot candidate to now. When both men were both candidates vying for the Republican nomination, Senator Paul was a vocal critic of a man viewed by many others to be an inconsistent conservative with dangerous potential. When the longshot candidate became the party nominee, Senator Paul softened his tone and walked carefully. While President Trump had secured the party nomination, he was still quite the controversial topic in the party. As a result, taking a position on the candidate was complicated and risky even within the Republican Party.
As I write, the Russians are hunting down the perpetrator of an attack on the St. Petersburg subway, in which 11 people were killed and some 45 injured. It took Russian authorities no time at all before an image of a possible culprit was circulated. Vladimir Putin, it appeared, would not be taking a page out of the West’s Jihadi-protection program manual. The feelings of Muslims—who else?—were not being spared. Russians weren’t cautioned about Islamophobia. Officials didn’t beat on their breasts about their society’s failure to integrate Muhammadans. Mental illness wasn’t floated to exculpate what was likely Jihad.
Since the beginning of his campaign to become President of the United States, Donald Trump has been accused of being a fraud. He is, according to the Left and the Never Trump movement, a conman. One of the most outlandish theories to date has been that he was deliberately self-destructing both himself and the Republican Party to help his old-crone crony, Hillary Clinton. For a time – a short time – I thought there might be something to the theory. I have since reformed myself and come to grips with reality. Not everyone is as smart as I am. The authenticity of his aspirations is unmistakable to the millions who voted for him, but the sincerity of his determination to Drain the Swamp and Make America Great Again is called into question every day by both common folk who vote for anyone with a D next to their name and the professional big mouths of the pundit/propaganda class. When President Trump told Jim Acosta at a fiery press conference…
“Islamophobia” is a real problem. Or so we’re led to believe by the usual suspects in the grievance industry par excellence, the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC). It’s a problem because, it is tirelessly declared, “Islamophobia” is only going to create more Islamic “extremists.” An article from a December 2015 edition of The Independent represents this all too common view. The title of the piece reads: “Want to create more extremists? Ignore the Islamophobia people like me face every day.” The author is Shehab Khan, a Muslim who lives in England.
If you are like me, you love liberty. I am sure if you are reading The Liberty Conservative, you hate big government. You probably imagine the founding fathers turning over in their graves by the government’s intrusions of your God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the reasons I write for The Liberty Conservative is because I desire to hone my ability to articulate the principles of liberty. Every day I met people who want to share with me the problems they see with our government. The more I study the principles of liberty, the better I am at sharing the principles of liberty.
Six years ago, what was known as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement situated itself in Zuccotti Park, which is located in the Wall Street district. The group of mostly millennials protested the worldwide economic inequality emanating from New York’s financial district. Their protest created, or depending upon your point of view, spawned, new terms: “99 percent” and “1 percent,” to illustrate the economic disparity between the majority of the population being controlled and impoverished by the one percent elite that controlled Wall Street and the world’s wealth.
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct. Though he originally spoke, or tweeted, clumsily, the gist of his claim was correct: The administration of his predecessor, Barack H. Obama, had indeed been surveilling Trump and those close to his campaign.
In the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven verse one, the Bible defines faith as being the substance of hope in things unseen. Those of us who are skeptical of the claims found in supposedly holy texts know that this is only half correct; in addition to hope in things unseen, religious faith is the denial of that which can be seen. The evidence for a godless universe is abundant and has brought us to a day and age in which the concept of a supernatural creator may be dismissed with a quick reference to Occam’s infamous razor: The God Theory is no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe and its innumerable contents. Religion may be useful to its adherents for a great many things – a moral foundation, community, etc – but as far as answering the biggest questions about our world and the cosmos, it’s been weighed and measured and found wanting. And yet, the blind faith in a personal supreme being persists. The point…
The past week has not been encouraging for freedom lovers and liberty-minded individuals who hope to work with President Trump. Trump has effectively thrown the House Freedom Caucus under the bus after they refused to pass unpopular health care legislation. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) was the baby of House Speaker Paul Ryan. It was crafted in back rooms, saved most of the harmful anti-market provisions within Obamacare, and would have put the GOP on the hook for the impending disaster. Trump should be thanking the House Freedom Caucus for helping to torpedo this mess. Instead, Trump has waged war against them.
No one ever said that going through the Supreme Court nomination process is easy. Central to the Senate’s constitutionally mandated role to provide “advice and consent” to the president, is the rigorous questioning of the nominee by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a subsequent vote of the entire chamber. However, there is a difference between legitimate questions concerning a potential justice’s ability to fairly and impartially decide cases, and attempting to besmirch a nominee’s character. This offense is especially egregious when the basis for such criticism is a decision exemplifying judicial restraint and deference to the role of Congress in our tripartite federal system. The specific criticism of Judge Gorsuch came at the hands of former comedian, radio talk show host, and current Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. The case upon which Franken question Gorsuch was TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. If one took Franken at his word, Judge Gorsuch is some kind of heartless textualist automaton. “I understand the reasoning behind…
We are approximately eighty days into the presidency of Donald J. Trump, and the American Republic still stands. The United States has yet to start World War III, the plan to build a wall on the U.S./Mexico border remains a pipe dream, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are still intact. While many of President Trump’s actions as president have been controversial, some of the worst attempted abuses of the new administration’s power have been prevented by coordinate branches of the federal government. The very constitutional system of checks and balances decried by many on the Left (and some on the Right) as the anachronistic relic of a bygone era designed to impede progress, has worked to prevent the abuse of the power of the federal government, just as the Framers designed and intended over two hundred years ago.
As anybody can clearly see, the prison system, and really the justice system on the whole, completely sucks in the United States. It manages to hit the horrific balance of being simultaneously too harsh (in terms of the bulk of prisoners being people who are in jail for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, giving America the highest incarceration rate in the world since the mid 1970s), and too lenient (in terms of prisons being breeding grounds for a thriving gang culture that has extended its tentacles well outside the walls of prison). Not to mention other little oddities like female prison guards being placed in men’s prisons, where the inevitable tends to happen – but you already know that. Indeed, on the subject of “quirky miscarriages of justice”, it’s not entirely unheard of for homeless people to commit minor felonies with the express intent of getting thrown in prison for the winter, among other financial abuses of the justice system. It seems that whether prisons are state-funded or for profit,…
Seventy years ago, liberals were duped by the “victims” they formed a group around to defend. In 1947, The Committee for The First Amendment was organized by liberal Hollywood in response to Congress subpoenaing ten members of the film community to answer questions about their Communist affiliations.
The attacks keep coming. Murder or maiming by Muslims living among us is an almost daily occurrence in the West. The latest was knifeman Khalid Masood, who plowed a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, London, and then proceeded to slash at them with a 12-inch blade. Immoral media counted five dead, with the killer. In addition to the four murdered, 50 people were injured. Promptly did Prime Minister Theresa May get her Churchill on: “[W]e are not afraid and our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism.” How easy it is to wax fat from the safety of a bunker! May was whisked away from the Houses of Parliament by an armed security detail. In fact, the only reason Masood hadn’t claimed more lives for his vampiric God (a peaceful entity, promised Prime Minister May) was because he committed Jihad at the Parliamentary estate. There, a “close protection officer,” essentially a bodyguard to a politician, drew a gun and dispatched the rampaging Muslim.
If you love sports, you need to read this article. Everyone across the political spectrum should be opposed to publicly financed stadiums. The Oakland Raiders have recently announced that they are moving to Las Vegas. Their new stadium will be partly paid for with $750 million in public financing. If you hate sports, you will love this article. Show this to everyone you know, because your tax dollars shouldn′t be used to pay for other people′s entertainment. Unless you spend all of your free time in the library or at the park, your fun is either paid for by corporate sponsors or out of your own pocket. Major league sports are a huge business that makes millionaires out of the players and billionaires out of the owners. Pro sports teams can easily support themselves through ticket sales, sponsorships, and licensed merchandise.
By and large, British author George Orwell addressed his essays and novels to the English-speaking world. During the war, he wrote a “London Letter,” about the political situation in England, to the readers of the anti-Stalinist American journal, Partisan Review. Even his stint as a BBC broadcaster with programs designed for Indian consumption were to audiences who spoke English. But there was one instance in which Orwell wrote to a non-English-speaking audience, the Ukrainian readers of Animal Farm. Orwell wrote a preface to the Ukrainian edition that is remarkable in what he revealed about himself. Something about writing for a foreign audience, particularly one with Stalin’s boot on their throat, liberated Orwell, a notoriously private man, and the essay is invaluable because it contradicts what biographers would later write about him.
In the Vietnam era, when the “New Hollywood,” shorthand for sixties’ leftists taking charge of the movies, lionized the Old Left in films like The Way We Were and The Front, they did so with the script used by American Stalinists during the early days of the Cold War; that those blacklisted were merely innocent New Dealers in “a hurry,” who were unfortunately caught in a crunch when the political climate shifted from FDR liberalism to anti-New Deal rightism. An example of this was The Way We Were, a moist treatment of Hollywood Stalinists, and the vicious treatment afforded them by American “fascists.” In a genius of casting, Barbara Streisand played a hyperactive Communist who was more New Deal than Marxist. By turns, those who attacked her were Roosevelt haters (in one scene she is shell-shocked when Roosevelt dies, while a blue-blood for making crude jokes about him).
In our age of terrorist bombings, intentionally designed for “collateral damage,”, one would assume that the Left would holster their bizarre views of terrorists as either misunderstood victims or patriots. Not so with liberal actor Robert Redford, who back in publicity junkets for his film, The Company You Keep (2012), expressed sympathy for the Weathermen, an ultra-violent Maoist-worshipping terrorist group from the 1960s.
Yeah, you’re probably scratching your head, aren’t you? Despite the ambiguity of the title of this op-ed, the comments you are about to read throughout are listed in an effort to illustrate the damaging state of the First Amendment. A few days ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded in one of the most obscure federal lawsuits in recent years that government regulators in the State of Florida violated the first amendment rights of an all-natural dairy producer in a rural part of the state. Specifically, the dairy is known as Ocheesee Creamery and the lawsuit was over a rift between the company and the state over the simple identification of “skim milk” on dairy products.
When his activist wife criticized FDR for not addressing the plight of blacks, the president always stated that to do so would lose him crucial Southern Congressional support for his New Deal measures. A perfect case in point for Roosevelt’s dilemma was personified by Congressman John E. Rankin of Mississippi. Rankin, who served for sixteen terms, from 1920-1952, was proof one could be both economically liberal and virulently racist; and his “Yellow Dog Democrat” constituency, who swore never to vote for Republicans because of Reconstruction, reflected both of Rankin’s political tendencies.
When Lucille Ball was accused of being a Communist at the height of her fame in the 1950s, she pleaded contextual circumstances. She cited her pressure by her Party-line uncle, but also noted that “in those days it was considered shameful to be a Republican.” And indeed it was, even in Hollywood, which was presided over by rock-ribbed studio heads. To subscribe to any type of anti-New Deal conservatism in Hollywood was to invite charges of fascism from Hollywood reds, who were at the high tide of their influence in the 1930s, and especially during World War II.
It is a given that today the Left dominates the historical profession. And accordingly, they edit out any inconvenient facts favoring the other side to achieve their liberal slant. In the process, they adopt the very Manichean view of history they accuse the Right of fostering; or in the words of their recently departed President, the view that the Republicans are “wrong,” and “we are right.” Hence, there is a temptation for the meager batch of conservative historians to counter-attack using the same Manichean model.
One of the most insightful observations made by Sun Tzu in his seminal masterwork, The Art of War, is the following: “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” Tu Mu was more specific in his elaboration on the point; the ancient Chinese poet said the enemy must be made to think “that there is a road to safety, and thus prevent his fighting with the courage of despair.” The beauty of Sun Tzu’s tome is in its timelessness; the succinct profundity of his proverbs is as relevant today as it was in the 5th century BCE. In today’s world, there is no place where Sun Tzu’s wisdom is needed more than the Korean Peninsula, specifically the territory to the north of the 38th Parallel, the tiny nation-state of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We in the west know it by a much shorter epithet, simply, North Korea. In 1950, North Korea’s Soviet-backed founder, Kim Il Sung, launched a…
Myron Ebell, a libertarian policy hero and the environmental chief of the Competitive Enterprise Institute struck a chord with me when he characterized Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as being a part of the “swamp” of the beltway. And, frankly, I agree with him. Before we go on any further, I went to the national stage to advocate for the confirmation of Secretary Tillerson during his contested confirmation phase. This is also the case for many of my conservative and libertarian brothers and sisters who sought out an accountable and steadfast diplomat to negotiate on our nation’s behalf.