Tag: Civil Rights

Wait, Who is Bill Weld?

John Keller | United States

William Floyd Weld was born July 31st, 1945 in Smithtown, New York. Growing up, he pursued education fiercely and graduated with a degree in classics from Harvard and a degree in economics from Oxford. Following a full time “career” in education, he turned his attention to the law. His first experience in law was as a consul to the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. After the committee was dissolved following the impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon, Bill Weld ran to be the Massachusetts Attorney General in 1978. Although losing, Ronald Reagan saw his talent and made him the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

A Man of Law

During his five years as a federal attorney, he launched an ongoing investigation into public corruption, most notably in the administration of Boston Mayor Kevin White. His investigation lead to the arrest of over 20 public officials, all of which plead guilty or were proven guilty in a court of law. The Boston Globe wrote, “[Weld] has been by far the most visible figure in the prosecution of financial institutions.” In his 111 cases as a federal attorney, he won 109 of them.

Due to the surprising success of Bill Weld, Ronald Reagan saw to it that he was promoted within the Justice Department. Weld became responsible for overseeing all federal prosecutions, including the cases handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). He served until 1988 when he, as well as Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns and four aides, resigned in protest of the misconduct of Attorney General Edwin Meese. Following his resignation, he testified to Congress. Shortly following his testimony on the corruption of the Attorney General, Edwin Meese resigned.

A Republican Governor in a Liberal State

After a short hiatus from politics, Bill Weld announced his bid for the governorship of Massachusetts. Massachusetts was an overwhelmingly liberal state, as highlighted in the 1986 gubernatorial election when the Republican candidate received less than 30% of the vote. Bill Weld, however, was not the typical conservative and ran on a platform of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility – winning both the Republican vote and most moderate Democrats. He was able to win the election by a close margin of 3.25% of the vote.

In his first term, Bill Weld went to work trying to lowering taxes and unemployment. He cut taxes 21 times and brought unemployment in Massachusetts from the highest in the 11 most industrial states to the lowest; even balancing the budget. He began battling corruption in the welfare system by a work-for-welfare system – slashing welfare spending.  His reforms and administration was overwhelmingly popular and when re-election time came in 1994, Bill Weld won re-election with 70.85% of the vote; in a state where only 14% of the electorate was part of the Republican Party. Bill Weld kept his reforms going, and seeing that he had served Massachusetts so well he hoped to bring his reforms to the nation and ran for senate in 1996 against incumbent John Kerry (D).

A Libertarian Leader

Bill Weld went on a hiatus from public life and politics following the turn of the century. As the Republican Party began losing its small-government conservative values of the 20th Century, Bill Weld began losing confidence in the Republican Party. After working on the Romney for President campaign in 2012, he left the Grand Old Party (GOP) and became a Libertarian, aligning with his views of small government in the economy, the lives of the people, and in peace, whether domestic or foreign.

In 2016 he sought the Libertarian nomination for Vice President. At the convention, following Gary Johnson’s renomination for president, having formerly run in 2012, Bill Weld was elected to be the Vice Presidential Nominee; receiving the support of 441 of the 872 delegates. He entered the campaign trail alongside Gary Johnson, the former republican governor of New Mexico, who served while Bill Weld was governor of Massachusetts.

“The dragon that I’m jousting against this year is this frozen monopoly of the two parties that have frozen a lot of people’s thinking in place and they think, ‘I have to be a right-winger,’ or, ‘I have to be a left-winger.’ They’re not thinking, ‘What do I think?’” – Bill Weld, on ReasonTV (2016)

It was largely the campaigning of Bill Weld, with his clarity on issues and clean presentation in interviews, in the divisive election of 2016 that led the Libertarian ticket to poll at 12% – almost getting the ticket into the presidential and vice presidential debates. Bill Weld proved to be a warrior of freedom wielding the Javelin of Justice and Shield of Sacrifice, bringing the Libertarian Party to its greatest year ever. The future for Bill Weld is unknown, but it is known that it is bright, for so few gave so much to such a noble cause.

For his dedication to prosperity while governor, his devotion to justice as a U.S. Attorney General, and his dedication to civil liberties while the libertarian vice-presidential nominee, it is clear that Bill Weld defines what a modern day renaissance man is, and is worthy of tribute for his many accomplishments.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Why Do the Political Elites Love Cultural Marxism?

By Jack Parkos | United States

The 2016 election was a fierce political battle, but it stretched beyond the typical fight between Republicans and Democrats. It was a battle between Western culture and cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is a term used in much of right-wing media, typically as a term to describe social progressivism. When an institution comes out against straight white men or western values they get labeled by the right as falling to cultural Marxism. The left tends to label this as “alt-right propaganda” or simply a conspiracy theory. But in all actuality, cultural Marxism is real and is a problem in today’s society.

What Cultural Marxism is Not

Cultural Marxism gets used by extremists on the alt-right quite often. They label it as a “Jewish conspiracy” to kill the white race (often using the word “white genocide”). This is foolish. Cultural marxism is not this. It is not when people of different races interact with each other peacefully, marry, or have kids; rather it is about conflict amongst groups. The alt-right is just as disgusting as cultural Marxists.

What is Cultural Marxism?

Many have heard of cultural Marxism but do not understand it. Cultural Marxism begins with the Frankfurt School in the 1960s, the goal of this being to bring about a marxist society. It differs from traditional Marxism in the sense of bringing about this Marxist utopia by trying a new political strategy. The traditional Marxist movement’s of the past consisted of the Leninist strategy at building a movement. The goal was for the upper political elite to appeal to the bottom of society to create a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Unlike cultural Marxism, Leninist philosophy was based on the idea of class struggle. People were divided by their class, and Marxist thought tried to unite the working class to rise up. This helped party leaders like Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky gain power.  All political movements need a “bad guy” to fight against. For Leninism, this enemy was the monarchies and the capitalists.  This was a success, as the revolution prevailed and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” began. Under it, the capitalists were the enemies and anyone who wasn’t a Bolshevik was attacked. Naturally, after Leninism, Stalinism occurs with a brutal police state hunting down enemies of the movement. The working class was used by elites to gain power. Meanwhile, the “middle man”, as well as many others in the working class, suffered.

Cultural Marxists use this Leninist model to gain power as well, but where they differ is in the target of the “bottom of society”. Cultural Marxists focus on cultural divides and not economics. In the Russian revolution, the oppressors were the upper class and the workers were the oppressed. Under cultural Marxism, the oppressors are white men and traditional western culture. The oppressed are minorities, women, the LGBT, Muslims, etc. Cultural Marxists attack concepts like the nuclear family as being part of “the patriarchy”. They label patriotism as racism and all of traditional western culture as oppressive or evil.

In the modern day, many people do not identify with economic class anymore. We aren’t divided as Bolsheviks, bourgeoisie, and the upper class anymore. People identify with their race, gender, and sexual orientation. Thus, cultural Marxist philosophers try to change the culture to obtain an end goal of complete Marxism. So far, they are very successful.

Examples of Cultural Marxism

We can see examples of this in Communist China, as Mao’s “Red Guard” destroyed artifacts of traditional Chinese culture. But in recent years it has overflown to the Western nations, like the United States, as well. We live in an age of forced so-called “political correctness” where everything from education, pop culture, and even sports must follow these principles or be punished. We allegedly live in a “homophobic country”, but bakers are harassed to obey the demands of the LGBT. Education has a huge bias with many classes being taught from a left-wing perspective. Furthermore, if a right-wing or conservative speaker comes to speak on a college campus, then riots or protests break out. The police are ordered not to stop the riots, but to force a peaceful speaker not to speak on campus.

The Elitist Love for It

The LGBT community, feminists, and Black Lives Matter activists are the new proletariat. (This does not mean for example that all women and/or minorities are apart of this as many white men are even part of this). The goal is a new “dictatorship of the proletariat” to destroy traditional western values. Naturally, elites will jump on board in an attempt to stay in power by using the so-called “oppressed” to gain power and influence. This is similar to how Stalin used the proletariat dictatorship to become the most powerful man in Eastern Europe.

Corporations jump on to socially progressive causes as they must to survive. Cultural Marxists were furious at the owner of Chic-Fil-A for being for straight marriage. Even in this year’s Youtube Rewindpolitics was brought up as the viewer heard about the “brave art of drag queens” and “women gaining their voice”.  Most of Hollywood and their elites speak out against borders and push progressive views. Hollywood and the media viciously attacked conservatives in the 2016 Presidential election, calling them “Nazis, white nationalists, and fascists”. It is true that actual Neo-Nazis are scum and should be called out. However, the majority of conservatives are not Neo-Nazis, and many labeled as such were not even close to National Socialism.

Some might even say we are under this neo-dictatorship of the proletariat. Elites destroy the lives of the opposition, while violent groups like Antifa bully right-wingers. Some attribute the election of Trump as a backlash against the cultural Marxists. Naturally, as a libertarian, I want an end to this cultural Marxist ideology as it only brings statism and conflict.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source 

The True Cost of Socialized Healthcare: Canadian Eugenics

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Canada is seen by many as the bastion of liberalism. It helps all those that are in need, provides for all of the downtrodden, and Trudeau is the king of political correctness. It seems as if it is a haven for those slightly left of center – especially considering the recent legalization of marijuana. But this progressive machine has a dark underbelly: its socialized healthcare system has resulted in eugenicist practices against Indigenous people.

Continue reading “The True Cost of Socialized Healthcare: Canadian Eugenics”

The Right to Rebel

By Benjamin Olsen | United States

The right to revolution is a concept that seems to have its roots at the beginning of time. The first widespread idea of the right to rebel and the overthrow of rulers was started in ancient China. The philosophy was known as the “Mandate of Heaven.” The Mandate can be summed up as: “If a monarch is behaving poorly, then bad things will happen. If bad things happen, then heaven has withdrawn its support and the people may rise up to overthrow the ruler.” This sentiment is mirrored in a more secular way with the idea of the social contract, the idea that we continue to allow ourselves to be ruled as long as the ruler protects our rights. This idea has been promulgated by John Calvin, John Locke and the Founding Fathers of America. The idea of the right to rebellion has been seen all throughout history, but the most successful execution was seen in 1776.

The philosophy of the American Revolution was rooted in the ideals of the age of enlightenment. Thomas Jefferson and other revolutionaries saw the power these ideas had to change not only their country, but the world. Most of the founders were hesitant at the fact of starting their own country and rather sought to reconcile their grievances with the magistrates of Great Britain. It was John Adams, a founder with an ideology leaning towards monarchism, that lead the charge towards a full separation from the island of Great Britain. This idea was deemed radical and the Congress debated the idea for over a year before finally ratifying the Declaration of Independence. Even after ratification, the general populace was against the idea of revolution. Only 25% of the population was active in the fight against Great Britain. The idea of splitting from a government that the majority of people had familial and other ties to was beyond belief. Revolutions can start small but can grow to be an unstoppable juggernaut. The American Revolution was truly started by a small organization known as the Sons of Liberty. This small fraternity was responsible for the Boston Tea party and the opening shots at Lexington and Concord. What the American Revolution exemplifies the best is how successful a small revolution can be. Starting with a small fraternity and ending with an independent nation and a modern day powerhouse.

Another example of revolution is the Easter Rising in 1916 that took place in Ireland. This revolution is different from the American one as it takes place in what is considered the modern day and it is a failed revolution that sparked something bigger than itself. The Easter Rising is rooted in an ancient rivalry between England and Ireland. Dating back to 1169, England tried to exert its dominance over the British Isles, and in particular Ireland. Irish history, as a result of such occupation and colonization, has a history rife with tragedy and turmoil. Irish rebellions stretch back to the first occupation and extend all the way to the 1990s. The true turning point in the same story of a failed rebellion came in 1916.

In the midst of the great war, a small organization of Irish patriots, ranging in ideologies from socialism and monarchists to classical liberals and fascists, planned to rebel against the English crown while it was occupied in the trenches of northern France. The rebellion gathered its strength in secret and trained with what arms it could manage to procure. On Easter Monday, 1916 the small band of revolutionaries struck. They first seized the General Post Office and rose the Irish Tricolor, that continues to be the flag of Ireland to this day. By the end of the week, the rebellion was defeated. All of the signers of the proclamation of the provisional government were executed. The Easter Rising had failed to free Ireland from the British. However, within the next two decades the Irish people would rise up, their eyes opened to the British atrocities. Ireland would become independent in 1937. Throughout the rest of the century beginning in the early 50s and continuing until the late 90s, Irish freedom fighters fought for the freedom of the North and the ability for it to join the Republic of Ireland. The Easter Rising shows how even a failed revolution can lead to an independent nation.

All people that are governed have a right to overthrow their governor if their rights are not protected. In today’s world, we are taxed at a rate unimaginable by the Founding Fathers. We have atrocity after atrocity perpetrated against us. Rebellion does not always have to be with fire and bullets like the Easter Rising and American Revolution, but we cannot continue to allow our rights to be curbed in the name of security and safety. As Thomas Jefferson put it “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” We should all seek such freedom and the ability to decide our own destiny free from intrusion by a government, that may as well be foreign. Revolution can come through the ballot box such as the Civil Rights Movement. Revolution can be peaceful such as Gandhi’s liberation of India. Only if necessary must a revolution be violent. Let us not suffer to be ruled, but to be rulers of our own lives. A revolution is needed to be freed from the bureaucratic quagmire and corrupt governance that plagues this nation.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Libertarians and Neo-Progressives Aren’t That Different (Part 2)

By Francis Folz | United States

Last week, I examined how libertarians and neo-progressives share common roots that run as deep as the anti-war movement in the 1960’s. Considering how libertarians and progressives have found common ground in the past, is it any wonder that libertarians and progressives find themselves together on so many present issues? After all, former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson once stated he found common ground with unabashed social democrat Bernie Sanders close to 70% of the time.

I believe one reason why it is quite prevalent to find common ground between libertarians and “democratic socialists” is because both sides share similar sentiments. At their cores, there is a sincere passion to uplift as many fellow citizens as possible and to achieve peace. It is often the means by which both sides believe it is best to achieve their underlying, intended goals that diverges the ideologies.

Although progressives advocate for a single-payer, authoritarian health care system, libertarians and progressives tend to agree that health care is too expensive and there are some common sense, capitalist ways to make health care more affordable. Both sides tend to agree on removing some of our costly, crony regulations, like the prohibition on purchasing drugs from other countries or the inability to buy insurance plans across state lines.

Progressives and libertarians also find themselves sharing opposition to America’s neocon foreign policy. Both sides acknowledge America’s foreign policy is often made up of expensive mistakes that only benefit the military industrial complex. Although progressives favor participation in multi-national organizations like NATO and the U.N. to achieve peace, both groups prefer a more humble approach to American interventions. 

Both groups also champion civil liberties and civil rights, although how they are addressed sometimes differs. In regards to civil rights, neo-progressives tend to have collectivist mindsets and indulge in identity politics. This contrasts tremendously with libertarians who believe in liberalism and in empowering everyone via individualism. Bernie’s supporters, however, join forces with libertarians in defense of civil liberties. This includes our universal right to privacy and the defense of human rights activists like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

The size and scope of government is often where libertarians and Sanders-democrats digress from each other the most. Although both groups promote personal freedom and responsibility, especially in regards to reproductive care and drug usage, neo-progressives contradict those sentiments by bolstering gun control. In some cases, they even limit free speech. Whereas libertarians view government as a necessary evil that must be limited and restrained, neo-progressives believe the government’s role must be very robust in order to accomplish all desired outcomes.

I genuinely believe the hearts of today’s “democratic socialists” are in the right place. However, the majority of their “solutions” require a large, controlling state which makes countless decisions for the citizenry via regulations. I don’t question the intentions of those who fight for $15 an hour. After all, with the high costs of living, in part the fault of poor monetary policy, who can live off of $7.25 (less after taxes) an hour? However, neo-progressives fail to see how large corporations laud the prospects of running locally owned companies out of business through the consequential high prices and labor costs. 

Socialism means well. After all, the intended goal of democratic socialists is to elevate the poor and the middle class. However, in practice, socialism never succeeds because humans are inherently greedy, especially when entrusted with resources, influence, and power. Our founding fathers recognized that corrupt attribute of humanity. Therefore, they constituted a liberal government, limited by the citizenry, the states, and the judicial system. It is time we find common ground with one another and work together towards restoring liberty and prosperity.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.