Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Reason Magazine: Damon Root- 'Arizona's Immigration Law Heads to the Supreme Court'

Source:Reason Magazine- welcome to liberal democracy at the U.S. Supreme Court.

"As long as there is not a direct conflict, which the federal government did not do a very good job of pointing to today, the Arizona law gets to stand under the Preemption Doctrine," says Reason's Damon Root, who was at the Supreme Court during Wednesday's oral arguments surrounding Arizona's controversial immigration law. "The federal government is saying that 'we have the power to stomp out all of the state experiments in immigration law enforcement.'"

Much like the Health Care arguments before the Court in March, Root does not see this as a good day for the Obama administration, in part due to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's poor performance. "At one point," Root explains "Justice Sotomayor interrupted [Verrilli] and said "look I am terribly confused by what you are saying."

I don't disagree with anything that Damon Root said here. And no, I'm not a Libertarian, but Reason Magazine is. 

The constitutional problems that the Arizona immigration law have are related to civil rights, not Federal supremacy or the roles between the Federal Government and the states. 

The question is does Arizona or any other state or any jurisdiction, including the Federal Government, have the right to stop people and in this case assumed that someone is in the United States illegally, simply because of their racial or ethnic background and then have that person detained, simply because you think they look illegal, simply because of their racial or ethnic features. I think the answer to that question is obviously no. But I'm not a lawyer and I certainly don't have a vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Chris Van Hollen: 'Mitt Romney Flips Faster Than Pancakes At IHOP'

Source:U.S. Congress- U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland)

"On the Martin Bashir show, Rep. Van Hollen points out how Mitt Romney was for the student loan rate doubling before he was against it." 

From Chris Van Hollen

It must be great to be able to change your mind whenever its convenient: "My position is no longer popular, so I'm going to change it." 

It's one thing to change your position, as facts and evidence changed. And just say: "Look, I was wrong, if I knew now what I didn't know then, I wouldn't of taken that position." But it's another to change your position for political convenience, which is what Mitt Romney has become an expert on: 

"Governor Romney, what's your position on abortion? Well when I'm running for U.S. Senate or Governor of Massachusetts, I'm pro choice. But when I'm running for President in a Republican Party that considers abortion murder, I'm pro life." 

You could go on to the healthcare mandate, the House Republican budget plan and others. I'll give Governor Romney credit for not going after the Religious-Right to go out of his way to bring them to his corner and come out for things like outlawing pornography, gambling and other things. Which is what Rick Santorum did, but again thats another flip fop. From 2007-08 when he tried to convince Republicans he was a Religious Conservative.

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign slogan should be: "If I need your vote and you are for it, so am I. And if I need your vote and you are against it, so am I." 

Mitt gives new meaning to the term practical leadership, because instead of trying to accomplish the politically possible, he tries to accomplish the politically popular. At least amongst people he believes he needs to vote for him. 

When Mitt is running for President in the Republican primaries, he runs as a Reagan Conservative. Which is why the Religious Right doesn't like him. And when he runs in the general election, he'll run as an Independent Republican, or Moderate Conservative to seek votes from Independent voters. 

What Mitt really should do is clone himself. Have Conservative Mitt run for Republicans, Independent Mitt to run for Independents. Or get a time machine to erase all of his positions he took in the Republican primaries, that Independents don't like.

This won't work for Mitt, he'll end up being the John Kerry of 2012, where Independent voters are trying to figure out who the real Mitt is and running out of time. And sticking with the guy they know because Mitt Romney might not even know who the real Mitt is anymore. Because he's changed his positions as often as some women changes their hair color to the point they can't remember what their natural hair color is.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Dennis Prager: 'The Welfare State and the Selfish Society'

Source:Prager U- right-wing talk show host and writer Dennis Prager.

"Does capitalism and the free market make you selfish? Dennis Prager answers this question and challenges what for many has become conventional wisdom. Capitalism teaches people to work hard. The Welfare State teaches people to want hard. Which is better?" 

Sunday, April 22, 2012

James Miller Center: President Jimmy Carter- Report To The Nation On Energy, February 2nd, 1977

Source:James Miller Center- James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia, 39th President of the United States) talking about American energy policy in 1977.
Source:FRS FreeState 

“President Carter speaks to the American people about the importance of an energy policy that focuses on conservation of the nation’s natural resources and a new energy department. Carter also addresses his ideas to improve the economy and reduce the size of government.” 

President Carter was right to take on energy policy and creating a national energy policy that would move America off of foreign oil and move us towards energy independence. He understood that America has a surplus of natural resources and that we can and should be energy independent like Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others and we shouldn’t have to import foreign oil.

President Carter understood the energy crisis of 1973 and how that hurt the American economy, thanks to OPEC. And understood the energy crisis of the late 1970s and how that effected the American economy with higher energy prices, that contributed to our high unemployment. Because people were spending more money on their energy and as a result weren’t spending money on other products.

The problem with President Carter’s energy policy, is that it didn’t go far enough. It was almost completely focused on renewable energy resources: wind, solar, natural gas, and others. When yes, they should be part of a comprehensive energy policy. But those energy industries were so brand new and underdeveloped in the late 1970s when this speech was given and still are today that they alone can’t get America to energy independence.

America produces oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas. We have the potential to produce a lot of these and can produce them all over the country. But we simply can’t get there on nuclear power and oil drilling alone. They won’t get us to energy independence, but they are our mature energy resources right now. And have to be part of the picture.

Renewable energy, conservation, high energy standards, should and have to be part of a national energy policy for our economy, so we can produce a lot more jobs in brand new energy industries. For our environment, to make it cleaner. And for our foreign policy, to get us off of foreign oil. And so countries that don’t have our best interest at heart, will have less leverage over us in the world. And this is exactly what President Carter was pushing. But he didn’t go far enough. He should’ve included oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power as well.

Oil, has, coal, nuclear are already here for us, because they are already there and mature. And employ a lot of Americans in this country. And we can produce them in a way that doesn’t harm the environment through regulation and taxation.

President Cater deserves credit for focusing on energy policy and making it a centerpiece of his economic policy. And probably pushed this debate farther along than any President since. But missed an opportunity to create a comprehensive energy policy that by now could’ve moved America to energy independence and finally off of foreign oil.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Robert Skidelsky: 'Interpreting the Great Depression: Friedrich Hayek Versus John Maynard Keynes'

Source:New Economic Thinking- British economist/politician Robert Skidelsky.

"The Inaugural Conference @ King's, Institute for New Economic Thinking, Day 1 - Dinner.

1930 and the Challenge of the Depression for Economic Thinking: Friedrich Hayek versus John Maynard Keynes." 

"Robert Skidelsky is emeritus professor of political economy at Warwick University. His three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes (1983,1992, 2000) won five prizes and his book on the financial crisis – Keynes: The Return of the Master – was published in September 2010. He was made a member of the House of Lords in 1991 (he sits on the cross-benches) and elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1994. How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life, co-written with his son Edward, was published in July 2012.

He is also the author of Britain in the 20th Century: A Success? (Vintage, 2014), editor of The Essential Keynes (Penguin Classics, 2015), and co-editor of Who Runs the Economy? (Palgrave, 2016) and Austerity Vs Stimulus (Palgrave, 2017).

He has recently written and filmed a series of lectures on the History and Philosophy of Economics which will be made available as an open online course in partnership with the Institute for New Economics Thinking.

His latest book is Money and Government, which will be published by Allen Lane in September 2018. He is now working on a book about automation and the future of work." 

Source:Robert Skidelsky- from his blog.

From Robert Skidelsky 

"Skidelsky has been a member of four political parties. Initially a member of the Labour Party, he left to become a founding member of the Social Democratic Party, in which he remained until it merged with the Liberal Party to become the Liberal Democrats in 1988. He objected to the merger and remained in the continuing SDP until its dissolution in 1990. On 15 July 1991 he was created a life peer as Baron Skidelsky of Tilton in the County of East Sussex[9] and in 1992 he joined the Conservative Party.[4] Around the time of the announcement of his peerage it was speculated that David Owen, a co-founder of the SDP, had lobbied then Prime Minister John Major for Skidelsky's appointment.[10] He was made an opposition spokesman in the Lords, first for Culture, then on the Treasury (1997–1999), but he was removed by William Hague, then party leader, for publicly opposing NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.[4]

In 2001 Skidelsky left the Conservative Party for the cross benches. He was Chairman of the Social Market Foundation between 1991 and 2001.[4]

In September 2015 Skidelsky endorsed Jeremy Corbyn's campaign in the Labour Party leadership election, writing in The Guardian: "Corbyn should be praised, not castigated, for bringing to public attention these serious issues concerning the role of the state and the best ways to finance its activities. The fact that he is dismissed for doing so illustrates the dangerous complacency of today's political elites. Millions in Europe rightly feel that the current economic order fails to serve their interests. What will they do if their protests are simply ignored?" 

Source:Wikipedia- British economist/politician Robert Skidelsky.

From Wikipedia

Citizens Against Government Waste: 2012 Congressional Pig Book

Source:Citizens Against Government Waste- U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (Republican, Pennsylvania) talking about the CAGW report.
"Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the 2012 Congressional Pig Book, the 21st edition of the group’s exposé of pork-barrel spending. CAGW was joined at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Northwest Washington, D.C. by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), as well as Representatives Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Tom Price (R-Ga.), and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) for a press conference announcing the release. Also in attendance were two live pot-bellied pigs, Bubbles and Churchill, courtesy of the Pig Placement Network in New Jersey and their handler for the day, Susan Magidson.

The 2012 Congressional Pig Book is a proverbial “good news, bad news” story. The good news is that, according to CAGW’s criteria, the number and cost of earmarks have decreased dramatically since fiscal year (FY) 2010, when the last Pig Book was published. The number has dropped by 98.3 percent, from 9,129 in FY 2010 to 152 in FY 2012, the fewest since CAGW published the first Congressional Pig Book in 1991. The cost has decreased by 80 percent, from $16.5 billion in FY 2010 to $3.3 billion in FY 2012, the lowest amount since 1992.

The bad news is that the moratorium on earmarks has been breached by Congress.

Since Congress declared the 2012 appropriations bills “earmark-free,” there are no lists of which members requested the earmarks or the location and purpose of the expenditures, which is a disturbing departure from the transparency of the past several years. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities for members of Congress to contact federal agencies after the fact and request that money to be directed to a district or state for the programs that have received mini-“slush funds,” despite the requirement that the money be spent competitively."

"CAGW Releases 2012 Congressional Pig Book" 

If you are a career politician who just happens to serve in Congress, (as if there are any other types of politicians who serve in the House or Senate) your number one priority, if only priority is getting reelected. And if not reelected, you are looking to get promoted. Maybe you serve in the House and you want to show that you can get elected statewide and run for the Senate or run for governor of your state. If you are in the Senate, you obviously want to get reelected or perhaps run for governor yourself, or perhaps you are looking at running for President.

My point is (yes, there's a point here) is that Congressional pork (which is Congressional appropriations that are a waste of taxpayer dollars, designed to please particular constituents) is designed to get members of Congress (House and Senate) reelected to promoted to higher office. You get career politicians out of Congress and you make Congressional elections (especially in the House) competitive and you eliminate post of the pork in Congress and in the Federal budget. 

Not saying that most of the pork in Congress comes from the House. If anything more pork comes from the Senate, simply because individual senators who aren't even in leadership or chairman or ranking of their particular committees, have more authority than individual representatives who have the same seniority in the House. 

What I'm saying is that Congressional careerism is a big reason for the Congressional pork that comes out of the House and Senate every year. And when you represent a partisan, gerrymandered district in the House, it's much easier to get reelected in the House, than in the Senate, because you don't have to run statewide, especially in a competitive state, like Pennsylvania or Michigan. 

So my solutions to eliminating Congressional pork, or at least seriously cutting back on it, is forcing Congress to go on a serious diet and get off the meat-lovers diet that they've been on since they were first elected to the House or Senate. And if you can't eliminate Congressional earmarks, you can at the very least make them be transparent. 

Make sure that every earmark that is attached to any Congressional bill (House or Senate) has the name of the member that the earmark belongs too. And force all earmarks to be paid for. 

These two changes right here would eliminate a lot of the Congressional pork. It's one thing to waste tax dollars when no can you see you doing that. It's another to do that publicly when people, including taxpayers are watching, especially when you are up for reelection. 

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Cuba Reforms Economy in Effort to Preserve Political System: State Capitalism Designed to Save Cuban Communism

If your going to be honest and accurate about why the Communist Republic of Cuba. The only Communist Republic in the Americas. Is abandoning State Ownership Socialism in their economy, you would be saying that they are doing it. To save the Communist Republic, to prevent the Cuban People from declaring a revolution against the Castro Regime. Perhaps there are some people in the Castro Regime, perhaps even President Raul Castro himself. That now acknowledge that State Ownership has failed Cuba and they have to privatize their economy. In order to produce the Economic and Job Growth, to lift Cubans out of poverty. And so the Cuban Economy can be productive but the main reason they are doing this. Is to save the Communist Regime and so they don't get kicked out of power. What the Castro Regime may not understand though, is that when a country has Economic Freedom. The people then have money and resources and enjoy that and feel the need for more Freedom, Social and Political Freedom as well.

Cuba is not headed to becoming like America, they aren't going to establish American Capitalism. Or what Europe has, which is Democratic Socialism. The direction Cuba is headed in, is what's called State Capitalism. Which is a mixture of Private and Public Industry, with a large Welfare State. But only there to help the people who need it. Which is what's done in China and Vietnam, both Communist Republics. But where Social Freedom is still very limited. And we'll see how it works out for the Cuban People.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Charles Manson: 'Denied Parole, With Next Parole Hearing Set For 2027’

Source:CNN- convicted serial murderer Charles Manson.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Corcoran, California CNN —
Notorious killer Charles Manson, 77, was denied parole Wednesday after a California parole panel “could find nothing good as far as suitability” for his being paroled, a commissioner said.

Manson didn’t show up for his parole hearing, which was held at a state prison in Corcoran, California, where he is serving a life sentence.

Manson’s next parole hearing was scheduled for 15 years from now, meaning he could die in prison.”  

From CNN 

"Charles Manson once more was put up before the California parole board and was denied freedom."  

Source:Daily Worldwide News- convicted serial murderer Charles Manson.

From Daily Worldwide News 

“Infamous mass murderer Charles Manson just lost his last real shot at freedom … the parole board just denied his latest request for release.

The hearing took place at Corcoran State Prison in CA…where Manson– who was convicted of 7 murders in 1969 … including Sharon Tate’s– was previously denied parole 11 times.

Now … at the ripe old age of 77 this is most likely the murderer’s last stand…since his case cannot be heard again for another 15 years … putting him well into his 90s.

Only one Manson Family member convicted of murder has been paroled — Steve Grogan–who was granted his freedom in 1985 for aiding the authorities and good behavior.

If you recall…Manson was originally sentenced to death in 1972 but it was commuted after the California death penalty was declared unconstitutional." 
Source:TMZ- convicted serial murderer Charles Manson has been exactly where he belongs the last 42 years.

From TMZ

Charles Manson has been in prison for his current sentence of forty-two years. After being convicted for his part in the Manson Family murders of the late 1960s. He is now 77 years old, so just for is current prison sentence alone, he’s been in prison for more than half of his life.

The last time Manson was a free man from the mid 1960s, after being paroled from prison in Washington State, to the time he was arrested in 1969, for his role in the Manson Family murders, that’s really the longest stretch he’s ever been free at any point of his life.

It’s not just that Charlie Manson has spent most of his adult life in prison he’s spent most of his life period in prison. He’s exactly where he belongs, he’s never shown the ability to be productive on the outside, without hurting innocent people, or having them killed. Charlie Manson is not in Prison for actually physically committing the murders. He’s in Prison for conspiring the murders, for inspiring others to do his evil work.

Charlie Manson was originally sentenced to death for the role in the Manson Family murders from 1969. So were his co-defendants Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel, Charles Watson and others. But then California outlawed the death penalty shortly after their sentences. So their sentences were changed to life in prison with the possibility of parole. None of the convicted murderers have been paroled and they will never be.

Imagine that you are responsible for intentionally killing not just one innocent person, but innocent people and not only is your life spared, but you actually have a shot as small as it is, of one day being free. Even though your victims will never be free from the crimes you committed against them.

The Manson Family is lucky to even be alive right now and that’s the best they’ll ever do. You can make a good case that sparing the lives of Leslie Van Houten and Pat Krenwinkell, was a a good move. Both have made productive use of their prison sentences. Both completed college in prison, both hold good prison jobs. Both have shown they are now rehabilitated and probably no longer represents a threat to society. And both have shown remorse for their crimes.

Charlie Manon is exactly where he belongs and is lucky to have whatever time he has left to be alive in Prison. He’s shown no remorse or admitted any responsibility for his crimes. 

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Cuba Hoy: 'Cuba Before Fidel Castro'

Source:Cuba Hoy- from this 1950s film about Cuba.


From Cuba Hoy 

This sounds like a propaganda film from the Bautista Regime that ran Cuba, before the Castro Communists took over the country through a military revolution in 1959. Cuba wasn't some thriving, liberal democracy and paradise of capitalism and private enterprise before Fidel Castro. But their urban areas and cities and the people who lived in those cities, were a lot better off under the Bautista's, then they became under Fidel Castro, who completely eliminated all capitalism and private enterprise, including local small businesses, when his regime came to power in 1959.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Hewad Patman: Fidel Castro (2011)

Source:Hewad Patman- from the 2011 film about Fidel Castro.

"Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (Spanish: [fiˈðel ˈkastro]; born August 13, 1926) is a Cuban revolutionary and politician, having held the position of Prime Minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976, and then President from 1976 to 2008. He also served as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba from the party's foundation in 1961 until 2011. Politically a Marxist-Leninist, under his administration the Republic of Cuba was converted into a one-party socialist state, with industry and business being nationalised under state ownership and socialist reforms implemented in all areas of society.

Born the illegitimate son of a wealthy farmer, Castro became involved in leftist anti-imperialist politics whilst studying law at the University of Havana. Subsequently involving himself in armed rebellions against right wing governments in the Dominican Republic and Colombia, he went on to conclude that the U.S.-backed Cuban President Fulgencio Batista, who was widely seen as a dictator, had to be overthrown; to this end he led a failed armed attack on the Moncada Barracks in 1953. Imprisoned for a year, he then traveled to Mexico, and with the aid of his brother Raúl Castro and friend Che Guevara, he assembled together a group of Cuban revolutionaries, the July 26 Movement. Returning with them to Cuba, he took a key role in the Cuban Revolution, leading a successful guerrilla war against Batista's forces, with Batista himself fleeing into exile in 1959.

Castro subsequently became Commander in Chief of the armed forces and shortly thereafter became Prime Minister. His involvement in the overthrow of Batista, as well as a suspected relationship with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, alarmed the United States, who through the CIA organised the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 to overthrow his government, before proceeding to orchestrate repeated assassination attempts against him and implement an economic blockade of Cuba. To counter this threat, Castro forged an alliance with the Soviet Union and allowed them to store nuclear weapons on the island, leading to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Adopting Marxism-Leninism as his guiding ideology, in 1961 Castro proclaimed the socialist nature of the Cuban revolution, and in 1965 became First Secretary of the newly founded Communist Party, with all other parties being abolished. He then led the transformation of Cuba into a socialist republic, nationalising industry and introducing free universal healthcare and education, as well as suppressing internal opposition. A keen internationalist, Castro then introduced Cuban medical brigades who worked throughout the developing world, and aided a number of foreign revolutionary socialist groups in the hope of toppling world capitalism.

In 1976 he became President of the Council of State as well as of the Council of Ministers. On the international stage, he held the post of Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1979 to 1983. Following the collapse of key ally the Soviet Union in 1991, Castro led Cuba into its economic "Special Period", before then taking the country into the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas in 2006 and forging economic and political alliances with other nations in the Latin American "Pink Tide". Amidst failing health, in 2006 Castro transferred his responsibilities to Vice-President Raúl Castro, who was then elected President when Fidel stepped down in 2008.

Castro is a controversial and highly divisive world figure, being lauded as a champion of anti-imperialism, humanitarianism, environmentalism and the world's poor by his supporters, but alternately his critics have accused him of being a dictator whose authoritarian administration has overseen multiple human rights abuses. Nonetheless, he has had a significant influence on the politics of a number of other world leaders, namely Nelson Mandela, Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, and he is widely idolised by many leftists, socialists and anti-imperialists across the world." 

When Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, he took over for a very corrupt an authoritarian dictator, but a country that had reached an economic level, where a lot of Cubans had some financial security. And President Castro took a lot of that away. He did eliminate a lot of the corruption from the Baustista Regime, but replaced it with heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian Communist Rule. And the Cuban people have paid a heavy price for that ever since.

But what the Communist Republic of Cuba (as I call them) ave gotten in return is a quality educational and health care system (for a third-world country) that the Cuban people have benefited from, especially for a third-world country. But the problem is that even though, Cubans tend to be well-educated because the Castro Regime has messed up the Cuban economy so much with their state-ownership economic system, where the Cuban State at one point owned the entire Cuban economy, a lot of Cuban Workers can't find the good jobs that their level of education should give them. 

I get the fact that the Castro Revolutionaries wanted an independent Cuba that wouldn't be dependent on either America, Europe, Russia, or any country in Latin America, for their survival and perhaps they wanted to end the Cuba government corruption as well. But what they did was replace one authoritarian regime in the Bautista Regime from the 1950s, with another that's a lot worst off economically today, then where they were just 50 years ago. 

Friday, April 6, 2012

Associated Press: Mark Hamrick- 'US Economy Adds 120K Jobs, Jobless Rate at 8.2%'

Source:Associated Press- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) campaigning with U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin)

"Employers pulled back sharply on hiring last month, a reminder that the U.S. economy may not be growing fast enough to sustain robust job growth. The unemployment rate dipped, but mostly because more Americans stopped looking for work." 

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Brookings Institution: Daniel Kauffman- 'America's Benign Neglect Toward LAC?

Source:Daniel Kauffman- speaking to the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"Daniel Kaufmann: While Latin America has changed dramatically over the past decade, U.S. policy toward the region has not kept up. It is obvious that China is responding faster than the U.S. to these changes." 

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

VOA News: Jeff Swicord- 'Marijuana Grower Supply Store Opens in Washington DC'

Source:VOA News- Dick Kennedy was interviewed for this piece.

"Just a few kilometers from the US Capitol, and the seat of the US government, the nation's first franchise to sell supplies specifically for marijuana growers has opened another store. The opening of weGrow Washington DC coincides with the city's first steps to implement a law legalizing marijuana use to treat certain medical conditions. VOA's Jeff Swicord reports that medical marijuana has set off a battle between the 16 states that have passed such laws and federal law enforcement officials." 

From VOA News 

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by a non-American audience.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]

While Voice of America is seen by some foreign listeners as having a positive impact,[11][12] others consider it to be a form of propaganda and a mouthpiece for the US government." 

From Wikipedia

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy