Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Infrastructure Spending on the Back of Irene: Why not



When is there a better time for Infrastructure Investment in America when the economy is tanking and when we just had a earthquake and hurricane. When is there a better time for government to try to create and atmosphere for Economic and Job Growth? As much as the Republican House and their allies have posed the question "wheres the jobs? They haven't proposed anything to create jobs if not more, their Economic Strategy is a Political Strategy. Sit out and wait for the next Administration and Congress and hope of course that they are both republican. Meaning the worse off the economy is, the better chances for them to get more power if not the whole Federal Government in 2012. Thats their calculation and they are purely looking at this from a political perspective, they figure don't work with the President and Democratic Senate. Wait to they have all the power and then maybe get around to addressing the economy. So what the President should be doing is being as bold as possible. Come out with a Jobs Plan thats big enough to address our Economic Issues right now. And dare the House to block him, because then he would at least have a target to shoot at. He can tell americans across the country I'm doing all I can to help improve the economy. But I only run the Executive Branch and I need 1/2 of the Legislative Branch to work with me to pass a plan to do that. If the House GOP wants more Tax Cuts fine, put it on the table or pass them and we can talk. Here's your plan, here's mine and lets see what we can work out. And if which is mostly likely House Speaker Boehner says no, then he has someone he can take to the people and say. We are doing everything that we can on our own but the House isn't cooperating with now and they are 1/2 of Congress and we need them to work with us to pass something. Can you help me out by calling your Rep. and Sen. and tell them you want Congress to pass a Jobs Plan.

Infrastructure would be a great way to do this not the only way but definitely a solution. The Core of Engineers has said we need 200-500B$ of Infrastructure Repairs and Construction in America. The East Coast Earthquake of last week and then Hurricane Irene of last weekend probably only adds to that. So lets put people back to work, especially people who are unemployed right now in the Construction Industry. By repairing our roads, bridges, dams, airports etc. Lets spend in that neighborhood to do that and lets not also not add to our debt or deficit. Lets pass a National Infrastructure Bank that would be Self Financed to pay for these projects. It would be paid for through Private Sector Investment after the NIB prioritizes our Infrastructure Projects. And then hire Private Company's to do the work. This is what President Obama should be offering to the country right now and the hell with Congressional Republicans.

The President of the United States can't pass legislation on his own, the best he can do is pass Executive Orders. That can be overturned by Congress by the House and Senate voting them down together. The House GOP Leadership doesn't want to pass anything that can become law right now. And I think the President knows this, which is why he should take his own plan to the country and see if they can help him out.

Click on the link of the blog to see a debate on Infrastructure from FBN

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Congressional Black Caucus: "Declares War on the Tea Party"



When you look at the American Political Spectrum, from the Far Left, to the socialists to the Far Right with authoritarians and theocrats. By the way both of these Political Factions influence to the Democratic and Republican Parties. Who are suppose to be the "adults in the room" the Leaders of the country. You unfortunately see racists and other bigots and there aren't just racists towards Racial Minorities but they probably get the most of the Media Coverage. But their racists elements on the Far Left and they are generally targeted towards jews and koreans to a certain extent and other asians like in Los Angeles for example as well as caucasians. There are also people on the Far Right and Far Left, who probably aren't racists. At least to the extent they don't hate Racial Groups just because of their race and I'm thinking of Radio Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh on the Far Right. And Rev, Al Sharpton on the Far Left, who use racially charged rhetoric to advance their Political Agenda. As a Liberal Democrat I've generally respected the Congressional Black Caucus over the years, even though its basically the House Black Caucus. They don't have any members in the Senate at least not any more. You might even be able to call it the House Black Democratic Caucus, even though they now have one Republican Member. I believe a Freshmen Representative from Alabama who's also in the Tea Party and I believe a Member of that Caucus as well. And I respect Rep. Emanuel Cleaver who's the current Leader of the CBC but they do have members who I wouldn't describe as racist. But have used racially charged rhetoric to advance their Political Agenda over the years. Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind. Basically calling the Tea Party a bunch of "Uncle Tom Racists" who hate Minority Groups. Because they hate their Political Agenda and perhaps aren't sure how to confront it and haven't been very successful to this point at doing it. And when all else fails, you always have the Race Card to pull, which will at least get your name in the paper.

There are racists elements of the Tea Party, I'm not disputing that and since part of the Tea Party has merged with the Religious Right in America. They have other Bigoted Groups to go along with them as well like Homophobic Groups. But since racism is about as evil of an action that someone can commit. Only coming short of beating and innocent person up, raping someone or murdering someone. You better be damn right before you call someone a racist or accuse them of racism. Because the more someone cries wolf on racism, the more credibility they lose, because they would be seen as not knowing what they are talking about or lying. The way for the CBC or any other faction of the Democratic Party to combat the Tea Party. Is not through False Accusations of Racism, because this is what these are. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Tea Partiers are caucasian But so is America up until 2050 or so but the do have members of other Racial Groups as well. As well as in Congress both in the House and Senate, Rep. Allen West of Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio also of Florida as well to name a couple. As well. as that Rep. from Alabama who escapes me as well as others.

Racism as I see it is a sickness, a Sickness of Ignorance that people get when they aren't educated enough or well enough. And they turn to racism because they are afraid of people they don't know. And don't know how to interact with them because they don't have much experience with them. So they turn to racism, so if you accuse someone of it, you better be right or there won't be much incentive to listen to you on the subject.

Monday, August 29, 2011

House Leader Eric Cantor Discusses GOP Jobs Agenda: Back to the Bush Days



The House Republican Leadership I believe has won the argument on Deficit Reduction in 2011, every time a Budget Fight has come up. They've gotten Budget Cuts out of if including in the last Debt Ceiling Debate. They've won the argument that the Federal Government should stop Borrowing and Spending and moving past the Fiscal Policy of the Bush Administration. And that its time for the Federal Government to get its debt and deficit under control and start paying it down. Given that, why would they introduce an Economic Policy that is more of the same and gets us back to the Bush Administration. But cutting taxes probably without paying for them and cutting them for the peopl
e and business's that are already doing very well and have been doing very well. But aren't spending any money right now that would create a lot of jobs in America. And return us to the days of the Wall Street Scandal of the 2008 and as well as the Wall Street Scandal of 2001-02. With no referee's in the game and no one regulating business's and individuals to prevent, stop and punish people when they abuse others in the economy. What House Leader Eric Cantor is apparently about to introduce in the House when Congress comes back in session next week. Is an agenda that looks very similar to the Bush Economic Policy's, a combination of Cowboy Economics with no rules in the game. And Supply Side Tax Cuts where you cut taxes deeply for people who are already doing very well and you don't pay for them. The reasons why our economy is in the economic mess that its in today, is because of the Borrow and Spending, Supply Side Tax Cuts and a Neoconservative Foreign Policy. Where you try to eliminate governments around the World that you don't like with Military Force and then you don't pay for those Military Operations as well. Iraq comes to mind because its the perfect example of this policy.

With the Cantor Economic Agenda, we'll see Campaign Commercials in either late 2011 or 2012 or both from House Democratic Campaign Committee. As well as the Democratic National Committee attempting to link and I believe successfully, President Bush with the House GOP and any Republican Presidential Candidate that endorses it. Because its more of the same, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over agin. Expecting different results, then the Cantor Economic Agenda is insane by definition because its more of the same from what we've seen the last ten years. But expecting it to work better. What we need to be doing instead as we get out debt and deficit under control. Is encouraging consumers to spend more money and this can be done with targeted Tax Cuts. As well as rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but pay for it, especially after a storm like Hurricane Irene. But also to put people back to work. And move this country towards Energy Independence instead of just subsidizing Big Oil and Gas just for doing well.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of House Leader Eric Cantor on the House GOP Economic Agenda

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Ron Paul On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: On how to Reform FEMA



Its refreshing to here Rep. Ron Paul honestly talk about reforming FEMA and Disaster Relief in general. But its also refreshing to here Rep. Paul moderate his position on how to reform FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And not be in favor of getting rid of a Emergency Management Agency, without replacing it with anything else. The way we've dealt with Natural Disasters in the past, is essentially wait for a disaster and then borrow the money to pay for the Disaster Relief. When Congress comes back into session in September and the White House most likely sends a bill to them. To borrow money from China or Russia or some other country to pay for it. House Leader Eric Cantor who doesn't make intelligent statements everyday, is right to take the position that Congress shouldn't allow a bill that would borrow the money to pay for this Disaster Relief. To come out of the House at least meaning it wouldn't come out of Congress either. Because the House and Senate have to agree first before any bill can pass Congress. The Democratic Senate will probably borrow the money to pa
y for their Disaster Relief, that the Senate Republican Leadership will probably successfully block. And I know this will start another partisan political fight the victims of Hurricane Irene at stake. So they can get the resources they need to rebuild their communities. And another political fight is probably the last thing americans want to see Washington doing right now but I believe this is a fight worth having. Because we are talking about the health of our economy and getting our fiscal condition back to a place where we can manage it. With a much lower National Debt and Deficit, I'm not saying that we should ignore the victims of Hurricane Irene and do nothing for them. I'm just saying that we should pay for our Disaster Relief now and going into the future and do a better job of how we pay for it by putting money down and up front. And using the money to pay for the Disaster Relief from that fund, the cleanup and insurance.

Reforming our Emergency Management System as well as a Disaster Insurance System I believe is fairly simple. What I would do is to eliminate FEMA but them replace it with cooperative between the Federal Government States and even Private Sector. Where the Federal Government would be more of a regulator of this Emergency Management System as well as the Disaster Insurance System. Then trying to run both of them and they would both be financed by essentially a Property Tax and a Payroll Tax. To fund for the cleanup of disasters and when a disaster happens in a State, then they would be able to use this Property Tax to pay for the cleanup. But then they would hire Private Company's to handle the cleanup. And this Property Tax would be assigned by how much property is worth for owners and renters and how high at risk they are prone to a disaster. Hurricane, earthquake whatever it might be and then their would be a Payroll Tax to pay for the Disaster Insurance. That again the Federal Government would regulate but not run and each State would have their own Disaster Insurance System that they would regulate as well. That the people would be able to select for themselves where to get their Disaster Insurance, including a Public Option for each State. And again this Payroll Tax would be assigned by how much property is worth and how prone they are to disasters.

A PAYGO System like this, paying as you putting money down and collecting it when you need it. To pay for the cleanup of disasters as well to fix and replace property thats harmed from these disasters. Is a much better way to pay for Disaster Relief then to essentially wait for a disaster to hit and then borrowing the money to pay for it. And putting it on the National Credit Card and letting nations that don't have your best interest at heart, own part of our debt.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

UN mission: 'urgent need to protect Syrian civilians': The need to take down the Assad Regime



With the fall of the Gadhafi Regime in Libya, I believe its now time to put the international focus on Syria and the Assad Regime there. To try to force President Bashir Assad to step down from and power and his regime as well. To bring a Transitional Government there while the Syrian People move to rebuild Syrian and rewrite their National Constitution and form a new government there. Especially because of the brutal crackdowns there, that Assad Security Forces have put the Syrian Opposition through just because they are fighting for their liberation there. I don't believe the United Nations, European Union, United States and the Arab League should step aside and watch this brutal Authoritarian Regime of President Assad. Murder his own people because they are fighting for freedom and to end the fifty year reign of the Assad Regime. From Father Assad to his son Bashir Assad and to try to establish some type of peaceful respectful government there that would respect Human Rights. I'm not making this argument as a Neoconservative because I'm not, I'm a Liberal Democrat who believes in Liberal Internationalism. And that means working with our allies to deal with the issues of the World, like governments murdering their own people because they want freedom for example. Syria is not a country that America can invade and occupy on its own, Syria is a pretty good size country of 22M people. About the size of Iraq but smaller and America as far as I'm concern is already overcommitted in the World. And not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea as well. But just because we are overcommitted in the World, doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and watch innocent people. Be murdered by their own governments, we are still the strongest Leader in the World. That needs to work with our partners the other Leaders in the World. To deal with these issues when they come up. Along with the United Nations, European Union, Arab League as well.

With Syria clearly being in the Arab League's neighborhood along with Turkey a major ally of America. This is an area where I believe the AL should step up to the plate an play a major role in trying to knock down the Assad Regime. Peacefully or otherwise, hopefully peacefully of course to limit innocent people from being killed. And that might mean that they have their own Defense Force and Foreign Service, similar to NATO thats made up of its own members. That the European Union is trying to build for themselves, that don't have brutal regimes. That can step in to deal with these Authoritarian Regimes as they come up that murders its own people. That could work with Syria and the European Union and the United States to knock these regimes out of power when they go too far. And I believe Syria would be a great opportunity where an International Coalition could step up to knock out the Assad Regime. That where the United States could still play a valuable role. But more from the outside with supplies and resources but where are partners step up and do the work. Like with a No Fly Zone and perhaps even Ground Troops to defend the Syrian Opposition.

I'm for a four step process to taking the Assad Regime out of power in Syria, first with Economic Sanctions in coalition with our partners. Then freezing the assets of the Assad Regime to keep money from the Assad Regime from leaving Syria or going into the Assad Regime. Supplying the Syrian Opposition with resources and supplies so they can play a major role in this operation. And then if necessary a No Fly Zone and Ground Troops over Syria if necessary. In coalition with NATO and the Arab League.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News on Syria

What will NATO's role be in a post-Gaddafi Libya?: To help provide security



NATO including the United States except for the fact that we played a much smaller but still vital role in Libya, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq. In providing the Air Cover and security for the Libyan Rebels so they could take down the Gadhafi Regime. And NATO has proven that they still play a valuable role in helping to bring stability to trouble nations that aren't used to stability. But NATO's role in Libya isn't over, they need to stay there to help provide the security for the Libyan Transitional Council and the Libyan People. As they try to bring stability to that country and to write a National Constitution, form a new National Government and hold National Elections. This is not something the United States can do on its own, we are already overcommitted and need to bring our troops home. In places like Europe, the Middle East, Japan and Korea. And demand that these nations take the lead role in defending themselves, while we get our National Debt and Deficit under control and rebuild our economy. But this is an area we can help with supplies and resources like releasing Frozen Assets to Libya so they can use that money to rebuild their country. This is something that NATO is going to have to play a lead role, with even Ground Troops even, along with the Arab League, especially Egypt. And where the European Union and United Nations can play a role in helping Libya form its new National Constitution and government. And help them rebuild their country with supplies and resources as well like getting the Libyan Oil Industry up and running again. Lifting Economic Sanctions and Trade Agreements, this is another area and more evidence that the United States can no longer be the Sole Policemen of the World and that we have to work with our European and Arab Partners. African Partners as well to help bring stability to these trouble areas in the World, Somalia would be another example where an International Coalition can work together to bring stability. And help them build a stable government that respects Human Rights and serves its people.

The United States is 14T$ in debt with a 1.8T$ Budget Deficit and a weak economy to go along with that. And we have our own bills that we have to start paying that we owe to a lot of these countries. And we need to start paying our own bills and rebuilding our own country and putting our own people to work. Before we decide upon ourselves that we need to try to do that for other countries, especially on our own. And I'm thinking of Iraq of course and to a certain extent Afghanistan where some of our partners are starting to pull out of there as well. Libya is not Afghanistan, they have money and a Educated Class that will be a big help in rebuilding this very large but lightly populated country. Its more like Iraq though that going to need a lot of help in putting these resources together for the good of Libya.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from Euro News on Libya

Friday, August 26, 2011

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on Lou Dobbs: An over confident RNC?



Despite recent polls the problem that the Republican Frontrunners facing President Obama in 2012. Is that they are either too far to the right to win the Presidential Election. Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry being to far to the right of Social Issues for of course democrats, libertarians, socialists and independents. And in Mitt Romney and I'll even throw Ron Paul on this list, too far to the left on Social Issues and Foreign Policy. For the Republican Base to win the Republican Nomination for President right now. As Independent Political Analyst Charlie Cook says and you'll have a hard time finding a Political Analyst that democrats and republican respect more. This is a Presidential Election between Barack Obama against the Republican Party right now. This is a Generic Election, meaning that once the President has an opponent and lets say that his Poll Numbers are about the same as they are now. The Poll Numbers will change because the Republican Party can't run the party against the President, they have to find one candidate to do that, which they don't have yet. And of course its still August 2011, hopefully for them they'll have decided on a Presidential Nominee by Spring 2012. As I've said before the best thing that the President has going for him right now. Is his competition or as I would put it lack of competition. Because the Republican Party has yet to establish someone who can both win their Presidential Nomination and beat the President in the General Election. Because they have frontrunners who are way too far to the right on Social Issues. Like Constitutional Amendments to outlaw abortion, Gay Marriage, pornography just to use as examples. Both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann support these amendments, that doesn't play well with Independent Voters to tend to be liberal to libertarian on Social Issues. Who also tend to decide these Presidential Elections, so winning the vote of the Christian Right won't be enough for a republican to get elected President of the United States. And then their are the frontrunners who are too liberal to libertarian of Social Issues to win the Republican Nomination for President, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

The best shot that the Republican Party has of winning back the White House in 2012 as far as I'm concern. And remember I'm a Liberal Democrat, so I doubt any republicans are looking at me for Political Advice right now. Is to nominate Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, John Huntsman or Gary Johnson either. All four candidate with liberal to libertarian leanings on Social Issues and forget about the Social Issues for this election or call a truce on them. As Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana suggested, because all four of these candidates play well with Independent Voters and the Republican Party on Economic Policy and Foreign Policy. And make a decision are they trying to win back the White House and Congress in 2012 with a nominee who can give that to them. Or are they going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And see President Obama get reelected with another Democratic Congress.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of the RNC Chairman on Lou Dobbs

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Gaddafi's deadly weapons arsenal: Libya is going to need longer term protection prompts US concern



Libya in the short and long term is going to need protection and the transition from the Authoritarian Dictatorship of Moammar Gadafi. To a Transitional Government, to a permanent National Government that can defend itself and respects Human Rights. But at this point the Libyan Transitional National Council isn't capable of defending and governing this very large country on their own. Their going to need short term protection as they rebuild their military and National Law Enforcement or Interior Department. That America calls Homeland Security but again the Libyan TNC won't be able to do this on their own and this is where NATO, the European Union, Arab League, United Nations and the United States to a smaller extent will have to play a major role. In order for Libya to be able to make successful transition from the Gadafi Regime to a more stable government. Libya is going to need Foreign Troops to help defend and secure the country, the Libyan Rebels can play a role in this. As well as be part of the new Libyan Military and Law Enforcement but they are going to need reinforces to protect the country. But to also rebuild its military to retrain the military and rebuild its Law Enforcement. As well as find the Gadhafi Weapons of Mass Destruction, that apparently the Gadhafi Military had a better supply of. Then the Saddam Hussein Regime when it was kicked out of power back in 2003. I don't believe they'll have to be destroyed like they were in Iraq or what's left of the current Libyan Military will have to be destroyed either. Libya is already going to need more then enough help to secure the country as they transition from Gadhafi to a more respectful government. And dismantling what's left of the current Libyan Military won't accomplish that, which is what was done in Iraq. I believe the fastest and most responsible way for Libya to rebuild its Military and Security Forces, to build on what they already have by bringing ex Gadafi Fighters as well as the Libyan Rebels.

Once Libya is somewhat secure with an International Coalition of NATO the EU, AL, UN perhaps the African Union as well. Then they can move transitioning from the TNC to a permanent National Government. With a National Constitution and having elections in the future, rebuilding the Libyan Oil Industry which will be critical to providing the resources necessary to rebuilding the country. As well as new Trade Agreements with Libya, releasing Frozen Assets to the TNC. Where hopefully they'll make a smooth transition from authoritarianism to democracy that the Libyan People will have to figure how to accomplish this. But before they can accomplish this, they are going to have to secure the country and not just Tripoli but the other cities and the thirty two Provinces that are in this very large country.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Libyan WMD

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Libya puts the European Union to the test: How the EU can help Libya



With the United States facing a National Debt of 14T$ and a Budget Deficit of 1.8T$ and with a weak economy. With very little Economic or Job Growth, where we are already over committed in the World. Especially since we are defending Developed Nations in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. The last thing we should do right now is have more American Troops on the ground in another country, especially another Middle Eastern country. We need to step back and play a major role from the outside with things like Foreign Aide and helping them form their own National Government. But don't do it for them but Libya is an example of where the European Union which is just a short swim away from Libya, not literally in case your thinking on swimming from Italy to Libya or something. But very close, here's an example of where the European Union could play a major constructive role in their backyard. In areas like helping Libya developed its new military, Law Enforcement, developing their Provincial Governments. With their troops as well as Foreign Aide and having Trade Agreements with Libya which is something the United States should do as well. This is an opportunity where the EU can step up of show some influence in the World and not just in Europe and be a real player and partner on the World Stage. By helping Libya close this ugly forty two year chapter in their history of the Gadhafi Regime. And move to form a responsible government that respects its people and respects Human Rights. This is also an area where the Arab League can step up and play a major constructive role as well, especially Egypt to help secure the new Libya as they work to build their new government and country. With troops and other resources as well, Libya is a very large country about the size of Iran physically with thirty two Provinces. And will need additional Armed Forces to defend this large country especially as the Libyan Rebels and NATO beat down a lot of the Gadhafi Military. And they'll need help rebuilding its military.

Libya is an opportunity where the European Union can influence what type of National Constitution and National Government Libya will have going forward. And developing those things and show them what type of governments are in Europe and to influence them in that way as well. Not to try to make them set up their type of government, only Libya can decide that for themselves. But to have a say in what type of government they have through influence. Libya has a long way to go before they'll have a functional government that will be able to defend the country in a responsible way. And will need help in developing that especially since the Gadhafi Regime did almost nothing to develop its own Governmental Institutions. The European Union and Arab League could help play a vital role here while the United States steps back instead of trying to be the Sole Policemen of the World.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the European Union on Libya

Monday, August 22, 2011

Winning unity next challenge for Libyan rebels: Where to go from here



Now that Moammar Gadhafi is apparently out of power and no longer running Libya and is perhaps more of an Opposition Force to the Transitional National Council in Libya. And its just a matter of capturing Gadhafi and his deputy's which is very important, so they don't reorganize like the Taliban. After the Taliban Regime fell in late 2001 in the Afghan War. But assuming that happens fairly soon, the next step for Libya and the TNC as well as the Libyan People. Is how do they rebuild or just build up Libya as a functioning country with a functioning National Government. And functioning Provincial and Local Governments as well, so the people can be free to live their own lives. Send their kids to school, have a functioning Health Care System, Legal System etc. A National Constitution, Rule of Law, Law and Order all things that any functioning nation need that Libya currently doesn't have. The issues that Libya have unlike Egypt, is that Egypt by in large already had most of these things. And Libya is more like Iraq Post Saddam Hussein where the entire Hussein Regime fell and the United States literally had to install its own Transitional Government there before a new Iraqi Transitional Government could be formed. Libya does have a Transitional National Council, so at least they have something they can build on. But this country needs a National Constitution that the Libyan People should have to approve. They are going to have to rebuild their Law Enforcement, their military, an interim President or Prime Minister or both. Before they hold General Elections to elect a new Parliament or Congress as well as President or Prime Minister. They are going to need Transitional Provincial and Local Governments before they hold Provincial and Local Elections. Establish Political Parties to compete for power of the country. A Court System and they may have to bring in some of the former Gadhafi Regime members to help with this transition which could cause problems. They have a lot of work to do but they do have a large Oil Industry that will help in providing the resources to do so but they are going to have to rebuild that as well.

This as I see it is a huge opportunity for Libya obviously to go from an Authoritarian Regime to functioning country that respects Human Rights. If democracy all together but its also a huge opportunity as well for the Arab League as well. And for them to move past the days of being in the pockets of these Authoritarian Arabian Regimes. And move to a place where perhaps they aren't speaking out in favor of Liberal and Socialist Democracy which I think would be a stretch. But at least get to the point and they've shown some progress in this direction on with Egypt and Syria. Where they are no longer backing Authoritarian Regimes with brutal Human Rights Records and at least speaking out against these regimes. And if anything working to get these regimes thrown out of power and installing governments that at least respect Human Rights. The Arab League could work with Libyan People to move past Moammar Gadhafi and work with them to build a respectful and responsible government there.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Fall of the Gadhafi Regime

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Rick Perry A Believer In States' Rights Except For Gay Marriage & Abortion: Not a Constitutional Conservative



If I ever here Rick Perry say he's a "Constitutional Conservative", I'll run down the Washington Beltway Buck Naked. He believes in the US Constitution as long as it agree with his politics. If Montana, North Carolina, Arizona, pass laws he agrees with. He loves the Constitution, but if Massachusetts or Vermont passes Gay Marriage, then the Federal Government according to GOV Perry needs to step in and stop that. Like with a Constitutional Amendment, if California were to pass a proposition to Legalize Gay Marriage or marijuana which they got close to doing in 2010. Then of course the Federal Government according to GOV Perry needs to step in and stop that as well. Because those things don't go along with his politics. There's nothing conservative about restricting Individual Freedom, Political Conservatism is about conserving Individual Freedom and not just Economic Freedom. And Constitutional Conservatism is about protecting the US Constitution not trying to mess with it. There's nothing conservative about passing laws or Constitutional Amendments to restrict Constitutional Rights, thats authoritarian. Something Neoconservatives or theocrats not Constitutional Conservatives who are Classical Conservatives are interested in doing. Which is exactly what GOV Rick Perry wants to do, pass Constitutional Amendments to deny homosexuals the ability to marry and to limit choice in Health Care for women. By passing a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion in America. Maybe next GOV Perry will come out in favor of Constitutional Amendment to Outlaw Pornography in America. Something of course Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann two other Presidential Candidates have already done. And then maybe next if California or another State were to Decriminalize Marijuana, something California again came close to in 2010. You'll see another Constitutional Amendment to outlaw that as well. Or if a State were to outlaw the Death Penalty, maybe another Constitutional Amendment forcing States to have the Death Penalty.

Neoconservatives and theocrats like Individual Freedom and Liberal Democracy as long as individuals are living their lives the way they want them to live it. Even if they aren't hurting anyone else in how they are living their lives. And thats very different from Classical Conservatism and Constitutional Conservatism. Which are both based on the US Constitution and Individual Freedom and government living under the Constitution. Constitutional Conservatism and Classical Conservatism aren't based on passing laws and especially Constitutional Amendments just to ban certain actions. Because it offends certain people, like Gay Marriage to use as an example, even if these actions don't hurt anyone else involved.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of GOV Rick Perry

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Rebels close in on Gaddafi's Tripoli stronghold: Time to get out of Libya?



I supported America's role on the NATO No Fly Zone in Libya back in March when we first became part of it under the War Powers Act. But my problem with this operation since is how President Obama has interpreted the War Power Act. Using the WPA as justification to get involved in Libya but not living up to the WPA as far as reporting to Congress within ninety days after our involvement. Which is why I haven't supported basically any involvement in Syria or the Gulf States because I don't trust the Obama Administration at this point in how they would handle potential American Military Operations there. Because I believe they've basically taken this position that we have the authority to send American Troops oversees on our own and even if we don't. Who's going to stop us and the hell with Congress and everybody else involved, just send us the money to fund these operations. Their current position of the WPA looks very similar to the George W Bush Administration on National Security, it looks very Neoconservative and not why Barack Obama was elected President. So with the Libyan Rebels starting to make real progress in Libya now and hopefully about to knock Moammar Quadaffi out of power. The time is very close for the United States to pull out of Libya and let NATO take complete control there with the help of the Arab League. And bring our planes home from Libya and start to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well. The fact that we've been involved in Afghanistan our longest war ever for coming up on ten years in October. Iraq for eight years and now Libya since March and with Iran pursuing Nuclear Weapons without us having much if any ability to do anything about it. The fact that we have the largest Defense Budget in the World by far, second place is not even close with our Defense Budget being around 700B$ a year. And of course our 14T$ National Debt with 20% of that coming from our Defense Budget. Is more then enough evidence that we can't be the Sole Policemen of the World and need more partners.

What we should be doing instead as of right now and into the future is work with our allies to build up Regional Alliances to handle situations like this in the future. So when a Murderous Dictator like a Moammar Quadaffi or a Bashir Assad decides to murder his own people in the future. Because they decide that they don't like their government and want the freedom to live their own lives. A alliance like this like the Arab League in Arabia or the African Union in Africa to use as examples. Can step and knock these Authoritarian Regimes down or at least hold them down, while rebels fight for their freedom. Like what is going in Libya right now but instead of this No Fly Zone being an Arab League operation, its a NATO operation instead because the AL isn't equipped to do something like this right now. Which is a big problem and why we are there right now.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Libyan Rebels moving in on Tripoli

Friday, August 19, 2011

CEO Herman Cain vs President Bill Clinton: on Health Care Reform



First of all Herman Cain isn't in Bill Clinton's league even as a CEO, this was a mismatch, if all employers had to pay the same costs for their employees Health Insurance. Then their wouldn't be any unfair advantage from one employer to another in the same industry, as President Clinton laid out. Had President Clinton spent more time explaining his Health Care Reform plan back in 1993-94, as he did here with CEO Herman Cain back in this 1994 Town Hall. Maybe his Health Care plan wouldn't have failed as badly as it did with it not even getting a Final Vote in either the House or Senate. But what President Clinton did instead was try to please every Special Interest Group involved and try to incorporate all of the ideas good and bad from the groups that would be affected by the Health Care plan. Instead of just listening to all of these groups and take the ideas that made sense and could work in one final package. I give President Clinton credit for taking on Health Care Reform, which by 1993-94 when he pushed this goal. There were already around 40M people without Health Insurance and a lot of these people were uninsured because they couldn't afford Health Insurance on their own or couldn't afford their employers Health Insurance plan. And I also give credit to President Clinton credit unlike President Obama, for putting his own Health Care Reform plan on the table and sending it up to Congress. And of course any President or Executive takes a major risk anytime they put their own plan on the table when it comes to dealing with an issue. Because it can get whacked around especially by your opponents who don't want you to succeed at anything. Which I believe is the lesson that President Obama took away from the 1993-94 Health Care Reform debate. But as far as I'm concern thats what Leadership is about, taking a stand on an issue that your addressing and saying this is where I'm coming from. And if you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong and what you would do instead.

President Clinton and I admit I'm a big fan of, I don't believe gets enough credit for being a strong Leader and being poll driven. But Health Care Reform,a long with the 1994 Crime bill that passed, his 1994 Deficit Reduction plan, two Trade Deals in 1993-94. The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. Are all issues where he took strong stances knowing that he was taking a major risk and would get hurt by it. But that is was worth it because he believed it was the right thing to do. And except for the failed Health Care Reform attempt, all of these bills passed Congress that he signed into law. And made a positive contribution to society.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Herman Cain debating Bill Clinton on Health Care Reform from 1994

Thursday, August 18, 2011

GET INFO ABOUT MARIJUANA!: Regulation instead of Prohibition



You take politics out of the Marijuana Debate and politicians not worried about looking "soft on crime" or "soft on the War on Drugs". Then marijuana would already be legal in America, same thing with alcohol in the 1920s and 30s. Take politicians out of that debate and we don't have Alcohol Prohibition either back then. Marijuana Prohibition is about Big Government trying to control how people live their own lives, trying to protect people from themselves. Marijuana Decriminalization is about regulation, making something that government already knows a lot of its people use, as safe as possible. Just the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated in America and that system by in large has worked very well in America. I'm not arguing that marijuana is healthy for people and that everyone should be using it and I wouldn't make the same argument for alcohol and tobacco either. I'm just saying that if you know people are going to do something that is very similar to other things that are already legal like alcohol and tobacco. You might as well take a realistic and practical approach to marijuana and decriminalize it at least at the Federal Level. And let the States figure out where to go with marijuana from there, just as they regulate alcohol, tobacco and marriage today. If your anti Big Government and don't want government controlling how you live your own life, as long as you are not hurting innocent people. Then you have no problem with Marijuana Decriminalization and then regulating and taxing it. If you believe 2M people is too many people to have in prison and the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people in prison. Just for possession or use of narcotics, then you don't have a problem with Marijuana Decriminalization. And again regulating and taxing it, treating it like alcohol and tobacco to prevent people from driving or flying to use as examples while they are high. Again to make it as safe as possible because marijuana like alcohol and tobacco have negative side effects.

Lets Decriminalize Marijuana, lets stop arresting people for simple use or possession of it, lets pardon our Prison Inmates who are in prison for Marijuana Possession or use who haven't committed any other crimes while in prison. Lets transfer our Prison Inmates who are in prison for possessing or using other narcotics and haven't committed any other crimes while in prison. To Drug Rehab Clinics and Halfway Houses where they can get the help that they need with their addiction and turn their lives around. Because they don't represent a threat to anyone else other then themselves. Lets save our limited prison space for the people who need to be in prison who do represent a major threat to society. And lets end the failed forty year War on Drugs where we've spent trillions of Tax Revenue trying to control how people live their own lives, instead of how they interact with each other. And let Free People in a Free Society live their own lives instead of trying to control our population.

If you know someone is going to do something and you can't stop them from doing it and all you can do is to react to what they did after the fact. And they are not hurting anyone else with their actions, you might as well give them as much info as possible about what they are doing. Instead of trying to stop them all together, so they can make the most informed decisions as possible. Marijuana Prohibition to me is sorta like Sex Prohibition for adolescents, is just as ineffective.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about marijuana

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

CBS News: CBS Evening News- President Richard Nixon vs. Senator Ted Kennedy on Health Care


If you look at what President Richard Nixon proposed in health care reform in 1974 to Congress and you look at what Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to do then and perhaps his whole Congressional career, the debate then between President Nixon and Senator Kennedy is very similar to the debate that President Barack Obama had with the Democratic Socialist faction of his party in 2009-10. Except one difference being that President Nixon being a Republican obviously and a Conservative Republican to a certain extent. Someone who didn't believe in empowering the Federal Government and expanding it generally in the economy. With the Environmental Protection Agency and price controls being major exceptions to this.

And Senator Ted Kennedy who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist who believed in social insurance programs and the welfare state. And in protecting them and even expanding them. Health care being a perfect example of this as he was in favor of a single payer health insurance system. With Medicare being the only health insurer for the whole country. But what President Nixon offered and I give him a lot of credit especially as a Conservative Republican for taking on health care reform an issue that the Democratic Party has owned at least since the creation of Medicare in 1965.

But what the Nixon Administration offered looks very similar to what President Obama worked out with the Democratic Congress in 2010. The Nixon Administration essentially created our employer sponsored health insurance system. Where a lot of American workers get their health insurance today. And for a long time through their employer. And what President Nixon wanted to do in health insurance was to expand it to millions of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance on their own. Or couldn't afford their employers health insurance plan. President Nixon's program was essentially private health insurance expansion through workers employers. Which is what the ACA is with a Patients Bill of Rights built into it as well and a health insurance mandate.

So to call the Affordable Care Act extreme or socialist, or anything like that is nonsense. It's a very mainstream approach to health insurance reform. That was started in 1974 in the Nixon Administration and then later proposed again in 1993-94 with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole a republican obviously. Along with then Senator John Chaffey a Northeastern Republican during the failed Clinton health care reform debate then. That President Clinton now admits that he regrets not taking the Senate Republican compromise in health care reform.

Which didn't go nearly far enough from what President Clinton originally proposed in 1993. But would've given him a victory in this debate and an accomplishment. And a chance to fight round two of health care reform in his presidency and build off of the first bill. And perhaps even saving the Democratic Congress in 1994. But of course we will never know. Senator Kennedy clearly didn't like the Nixon health Care reform plan as this video indicates. But it's hardly an extreme proposal proposed by right-wing Extremists. Because the Dole/Chaffey health care plan in 1993-94 would've build off of the employer sponsored health insurance system. And what was in the Nixon plan, a lot of it is in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.




Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Rand Paul on Ron Paul 2nd Place: Libertarianism gaining ground in Iowa?



I hope I'm not too late to comment on Ron Paul's strong 2nd Place Finish in the Iowa Straw Poll on Saturday. I was at my Little Brother's and Sister in Law's wedding last weekend and on vacation, so I think I have a good excuse and I wouldn't have done it in any other way. I predicted that Ron Paul would win Iowa Straw Poll and came within nine tenths of a percentage point and two hundred votes of being right. So I feel pretty good about my prediction not that Ron Paul is my candidate. I'm not a republican or a libertarian and Ron Paul is a libertarian in the Republican Party. But I believe he's by far the best Republican Candidate for President they have which isn't saying very much. But Rep. Paul is a very strong Presidential Candidate and is very honest and I have a lot of respect for his Freedom Message and belief in Freedom of Choice. And when he says he's anti Big Government, you better believe him because Rep. Paul is anti all forms of Big Government. With his strong showing Saturday tells me that in a State like Iowa where the Religious Right is still very strong there. And to me they represent a form of belief Big Government with their stances on Social Issues. That a libertarian like Ron Paul who did as well as he did, that maybe libertarianism is on the rise in Iowa. The few libertarians that are in the Republican Party, aren't there because of Political Ideology. They have strong disagreements with the Religious Right and Neoconservatives and the Tea Party to a certain extent that have merged with the Religious Right. Like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin to use as examples. These Libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul and his supporters, are republicans pretty much in name only. So they can have a major say in American Politics, instead of being trapped in a Third Party like the Libertarian Party. That forty years later is struggling just to find relevance in American Politics. So because of how well Ron Paul did at the Iowa Straw Poll, tells me that libertarianism is not only on the rise in the Republican Party but the country as a whole. And the better that libertarians like Ron Paul do in American Politics, whether they are in the Republican Party or not. The better they'll do in American Politics and the more relevance they'll have.

The Ron Paul showing on Saturday is good news for libertarianism and the Republican Party, because the better libertarians and Classical Conservatives do in American Politics. The more mainstream the GOP will be and it will truly be an anti Big Government party, that Barry Goldwater once said. Believes that "government should be out of our wallets and bedrooms" and let Free People live freely in a Free Society. Without Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives telling us how to live our lives. Because the better libertarians do, the worst off Religious Conservatives and Neoconservatives will be in the Republican Party. Because they both can't do well in the same Political Party, because you can't have one faction thats anti Big Government and two other factions that support a form of Big Government. Because their message goes against what the other believes in.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Sen. Rand Paul on his father's showing at the Iowa Straw Poll

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Helmer Reenberg: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater After The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Mr. Conservative-
The assassination of Jack Kennedy was tragic in so many ways for so many people and a big reason for it was, because of how talented President Kennedy was as a President as well as a man. But just as political junky from my perspective, one of the reasons why his death was so tragic, was because of what could've been. As far how the 1964 presidential election would've look and it would've probably affected the Congressional elections as well. Because I believe and we will never have anyway of knowing this that a Goldwater-Kennedy election would've been much closer. After President Kennedy was assassinated most of the country turned to Lyndon Johnson to be their President to full-fill President Kennedy's agenda. Which is a big reason why Richard Nixon didn't run for President in 1964 and waited till 1968. But I believe the 1964 presidential election had it been between Goldwater and Kennedy, would've been a great presidential election. I think Kennedy would've still won though.

But with Senator Barry Goldwater, you would've had a presidential candidate representing classical conservatism about as well as it could be represented. And to a certain extent I believe he did that anyway in 1964. Running against President Johnson despite losing in a landslide where I believe he won less than 40% of the vote and lost around forty states. But managed to win Southern states that were owned by the Democratic Party. And then you would've had President Jack Kennedy on the left, a liberal hero of mine, representing liberalism as well as it could be represented. And I believe we would've seen great debates across the country. As they were apparently already talking about doing in as early as 1962, I believe from what I would've heard. And they would've been great debates, on civil rights. The President being in favor of the civil rights bills that President Johnson got through Congress.

Senator Goldwater had a different approach. Medicare which was a bill that President Kennedy tried to push through Congress. Senator Goldwater would've wanted a different bill with more competition for senior citizens. Cuba with Fidel Castro and how we try to deal with that Communist Republic. There would've been a lot of great issues that these great men would've debated in 1964. The assassination of President Jack Kennedy was tragic on many levels, but from a perspective of a political junky, it was tragic for the country as well. Because they were left with one less great general election. With President Kennedy running a tough race to get reelected and Senator Goldwater giving him a run for his money. A Goldwater-Kennedy presidential election, would have been a great classic battle, between the Center-Right and the growing conservative movement. Against Center-Left Liberals, who are called New Democrats today. But we'll never know.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore on Margaret Thatcher

Charles Moore-
If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward neoconservatism and religious conservatism.

Neoconservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Neoconservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom.



Sunday, August 7, 2011

Barry Lynn Vs. Tony Perkins On Rick Perry Prayer Event: The new Fraud in Chief



The Christian Right in America apparently has felt left out in the Republican Presidential Campaign, with perhaps their only Presidential Candidate being Michelle Bachmann. But I would argue that Rick Santorum would be a candidate they would normally support, because he's with them on all the issues. But for whatever the reasons why they haven't endorsed Sen. Santorum, I believe because they feel he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Republican Nomination. If you look at where Santorum is in the polls and his fundraising numbers. Mike Huckabee is not running for President and Sarah Palin is not running for President, Herman Cain isn't going in anywhere in the polls. Newt Gingrich at least at one point was loved all over the Republican Base but since running for President, he's done everything to lose that love. Mitt Romney is clearly not with them on Social Issues as much as might try to convince them otherwise, Romney is a Northeastern Republican and a moderate to liberal on most Social Issues. And for whatever the reasons, the Christian Right isn't sold enough on Tim Pawlenty yet either. So the Christian Right which almost always has at least one Republican Presidential Candidate they can rely on. And in 2000 and 2004 they had the frontrunner in George W Bush, but in 2011-12 they feel left out. And even though Texas Governor Rick Perry might have a sack of bricks for a brain. He's at least politically smart enough to see this and sees this has his opportunity to break in the Republican Field and be the Conservative Christian Candidate for President. He's Governor of a large Southern State in the Heart of the Bible Belt and is religiously qualified at least in their minds to be President. So he's thinking what the hell essentially I can get into this race and win it with the support of the Christian Right behind me. A faction of the party that no Republican for President can win the White House without. And his strategy is to make his Christianity as public as possible and push the line that separates Church and State as much as he can politically get away with it.

Rick Perry is just another schmuck politician who thinks they can be President of the United States because they are Governor of a large State. Because he feel he can appeal to the base of his party to make that happen for him. Even though he's less qualified to be President of the United States then the last Texan Governor who became President. And look how well that worked out for us, Rick Perry would just be another President in need for On the Job Training and haven't we had enough Presidents like that.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Rick Perry Prayer Event

Saturday, August 6, 2011

US Government Allowed Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!: More War on Drugs Hypocrisy



Here's another example of the hypocrisy in the American War on Drugs, allowing some narcotics come into America, in exchange for info on other Drug Cartels. Fixing one broken leg while your breaking the other and you can add this to the List of Hypocrisy in the War on Drugs. Prohibiting marijuana while allowing alcohol and tobacco, drugs that are just as dangerous if not more dangerous then marijuana. Now I've said this before, I'm not for legalizing marijuana because I think its good for people or I want to use it and not risk going to jail because of that use. But what I'm saying is that if government is going to prohibit and activity, because they think its bad for people and try to protect us from ourselves. And try to make these decisions for us, instead of giving us the Freedom of Choice to decide these things for ourselves. Then they should prohibit all activities where the Cost Benefits are about the same, alcohol and tobacco are excellent examples when talking about marijuana. Otherwise its just hypocritical of government and gives people another reason not to trust them, as if people didn't have enough already. If you want to win the War on Drugs, you can start by being honest with the people your trying to protect and not be hypocritical. And stop having laws and trying to pass new laws that attempts to protect people from themselves and instead just have laws that try to protect innocent people from the harm of others. Because once you pass a law, you still have to enforce it , otherwise its as worthless as Jaywalking Laws. And just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean it goes away, thats why we have jails and prisons rights, all the evidence you need to know that. And enforcing laws comes with a cost whether they are good laws or bad laws. A cost to society, so you might as well just have good honest laws that are designed to protect innocent people from the harm of others. And stop having and passing as Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws" laws that are designed to protect people from themselves instead of the harm of others.

This Mexican Drug Cartel case of where the US Government agreed to let narcotics smuggled into America in exchange for intelligence on other Drug Cartels. Is just more evidence of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the War on Drugs and why we need to change and reform it before this war causes more damage on American Society.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the US Government allowing for smuggling of Mexican Narcotics into America

Friday, August 5, 2011

Christine O'Donnell: Barack Obama Is "Anti-American": Baby Face to match her IQ



I find it ironic when I here terms like "Anti American" coming from the Far Right, especially from people who believe we have too much freedom as americans. That somehow are country has suffered from "our lack of Moral Values". Or as serial Political Candidate who's never been elected to anything because of how far to the right he is. Said that if he were ever elected to anything and cats flew to the Moon. That the number one thing he would focus on, would be our "Moral Crisis". Passing new laws to make us less freer as a nation, just took at all of the Campaign Pledges that these Far Right groups are trying to make Republican Presidential Candidates try to sign. There's one pledge that would force Republican Candidates come out for a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage. Republicans are suppose to be in favor of Federalism and States Rights that most of these decisions especially on Social Issues. The States have traditionally regulated marriage, that has been traditionally a State Issue. There's another Campaign Pledge that of course Michelle Bachmann signed almost before it was ready to be signed. That there would be law that would ban pornography an issue that Federal Courts have ruled to be unconstitutional Anti Porn Laws. The Republican Party is suppose to be a party thats about about Limited Government especially at the Federal Level and believe in Federalism. Yet the Far Right in America who to me are not even conservatives or republicans but authoritarians. They believe that people should be free to live their own lives as long as they aren't doing things that the Far Right disagrees with. Even if these actions don't hurt anyone and that laws should be passed to protect people from the harm of others, not protect people from themselves. Classical Conservatism hasn't left the Republican Party but they don't even have a Classical Conservative running for President right now. Which is an indicator of how less influential Classical Conservatism is in the Republican Party then it was twenty years ago.

Christine O'Donnell is clearly not the spokesperson for the Republican Party or even the Far Right in America which are two good things. Just because of the fact that the Republican Party at least the Leadership didn't want her as their Senate Candidate in 2010. But she does express a lot of the feeling of the Far Right and presents how dangerous their ideas are for America.

Click on the link of the blog to see another ironically funny video from Christine O'Donnell

Thursday, August 4, 2011

House Leader Cantor doesn't like Tax Hikes: What else is new



In Round One of the Debt Deal, there was a plan that was all about Budget Cuts, including in the Defense Department and no cuts in Entitlement Programs. Round Two of the Debt Deal will be about Entitlement Reform and Tax Reform, I don't see this Republican House ever going for Tax Hikes on anyone, Income Tax Hikes impossible. But would could happen from this Congressional Joint Committee as I prefer to call them. Is Tax Reform that closes Tax Loopholes including Corporate Welfare, Big Oil and Gas subsidy's eliminated and using that revenue to help pay down the debt. In exchange these company's would be able to have more areas to operate which would actually be good for the economy. Because of the jobs it would create, I believe this is the best that democrats and the President will be able to get from this Republican House. And is something that they and the Democratic Senate should fight for. As well as Entitlement Reform that saves these programs without hurting people who need them. But demanding that wealthier people who don't need them, pay more into them and take out less. As far as the rest of the Social Insurance Programs in the Federal Government, I would like to see them taken off of the Federal and State Budgets all together. And made independent of the Federal Government all together and turned into Non Profit Good Will Services that would help people in need as well as empowering these people to become Self Sufficient. But still regulated by the Federal Government but I don't see that this Congre
ssional Joint Committee coming up with this. But thats an idea I'll be pushing in the future. The problem with the economy isn't that taxes are too high on the wealthy, the problem with the economy has to do with lack of demand. People aren't spending enough money and purchasing enough items, for business's to make enough money to create enough Economic Growth that leads to strong Job Growth. And while we are waiting for the Congressional Joint Committee to hopefully draft Round Two of Debt Reduction. Hopefully the economy will be the next focus.

The White House and Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating more demand in it so people spend more money, to get Economic and Job Growth going again. And they can do this without adding to the debt, which would be the easiest way to pay down the debt without hurting anyone. This should be Congress's main focus in September when they come back, things like a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself which would also help with our Manufacturing Industry. Because the people who do these projects need the supplies to do this work. And a Comprehensive Energy Plan would help the economy as well and allow our Energy Company's to expand their presence in America. Which again would create a lot more jobs in exchange for cutting their Corporate Welfare and last but never least, three Trade Deals stuck in Congress, Central America, Columbia and Korea, three Major Markets where we could export our goods.

Its good that Round One of Debt Reduction is behind us and now Washington will have an opportunity to focus on the economy when Congress comes back in September along with the NFL, hint hint. And that has to be the biggest focus right now for several reasons but also without a strong economy. Debt Reduction means nothing.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of House Leader Eric Cantor on taxes, you might stay awake for the whole thing

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

1994 Republican Revolution: Good Old Times for the Grand Ole Party



Some of the things that I respect about the 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress that not only saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. But saw them take control of the Senate for the first time in eight years. Was first of all the numbers, they went from I believe 178 Seats in the House to 230, a fifty two seat pickup in one Mid Term Election. And then some Conservative Democratic Representatives switched over to the Republican Party right after that election. The hell with them for lack of a better term, from my perspective, they weren't real democrats to begin with. And then they went f
rom forty four Senators, a Filibuster Proof Minority to fifty three, a nine Seat Pickup in the Senate. Where only 1/3 of the Senators runs every two years so that pretty impressive as well. But how they did it, a lot of it were gifts from the Democratic Party President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The 103rd Democratic Congress was very productive as far as passing legislation. President Clinton got most of his agenda from the 1992 Campaign through his first two years. I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of this and I believe a lot of good legislation. Two Trade Agreements that both actually had Bi Partisan support. That the Republican Leadership who were still in the minority in both the House and Senate, instead of trying to block it like they were successful in doing with Health Care Reform, help try to pass. Then the President got his Family and Medical Leave bill through, his Deficit Reduction bill through without one Republican in Congress voting for it. And the 1994 Crime bill that had some Bi Partisan support for. As well as two Supreme Court Justices through the Democratic Senate, Stephen Brier and Ruth Bader Ginsburg two liberals by the way. But the problem with most of this legislation was how unpopular it was with the Republican Base and ended up uniting the entire Republican Party against President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. And the Republican Congressional Leadership along with the Republican National Committee and their allies. Knew this and were able to take advantage of this anger across the country and tell people. Especially in republican areas, that we don't like what the democrats are doing as well, vote for us in 1994 and we'll stop them. Along with the Senate Republican Leadership with Bob Dole able to block more legislation from passing.

Another thing that I respected as a Political Junky and also as a liberal even though I disagreed with a lot of the "Contract with America". Was what it was about, getting America back to Classical Conservatism especially Fiscal Conservatism and Foreign Policy Conservatism. Even though they brought in the Christian Right which certainly doesn't represent Classical Conservatism but Religious Conservatism. These weren't Neoconservatives from the George W Bush Administration and their message was the Federal Government was too big, has too much power and spends too much money. And has moved away from what the US Constitution and we need to send some of this power back to the State and people. And give them a bigger say in how they govern themselves, this was sort of a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Conservative Message. That they almost threw away in their first two years but they got off to a good start.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the 1994 Republican Revolution

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The Real Newt Gingrich: The Newt Gingrich I respected



The Newt Gingrich I respected was the Newt of the 1990s and even earlier last decade up till 2007, before he started seriously considering running for President and made it official in 2011. The Newt I liked was a Reagan Classical Conservative who was even though he was probably more to the right then Ron Reagan on Social Issues. Because he brought in the Christian Right in the early and mid 1990s as the House Minority Whip to House Minority Leader Bob Michael. And then later when he became Speaker of the House in 1995, who was a big fan of Limited Government and Individual Freedom, low taxes and removing bad regulations. And wanted to shrink the Federal Government, cut taxes, balance the Federal Budget, all things that were done while Speaker Gingrich was Speaker of the House. With the help of President Clinton, as well as Congressional Republicans and Democrats. But moving forward except for maybe some overspending by the Bush Administration in this century, he was right there with President Bush and the then Republican Congress's. As they moved in a Neoconservative direction and actually made the Federal Government bigger on their own. After Newt spent twenty years in the House to make the Federal Government smaller. Which tells me why do he spend all of that time trying to accomplish something that took him 16-20 years to accomplish. Something Classical Conservatives had fought for over thirty years to accomplish and actually needed a Democratic President to get done. That took President Bush just four years to bring down, with his unpaid Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and 500B$ unpaid for Medicare Advantage plan and 3T$ in unpaid for Tax Cuts. And the 100s of billions of dollars of borrowed money to deal with Hurricane Katreena. Expanding the Education Department with "No Child Left Behind", the Patriot Act, which restricts liberty with the Fourth Amendment issues. These are all things that Classical Conservatives, liberals and libertarians are against. None of these Political Factions believe in expanding the Federal Government but they all believe in Limited Government. But after Speaker Gingrich left the House, we went on to support things that are anti to what he spent twenty years to accomplish.

When Newt Gingrich announced back in February, 2011 that he was considering running for President and announced it in March. I thought he might be the only Republican Candidate, that could unite a very divided Republican Party. Because he was someone at one point at least, was loved by all three major Political Factions in the Republican Party. Classical Conservatives which at one point he was, Neoconservatives and Theocratic Conservatives. But since becoming a Presidential Candidate, he's gone out of his way to offend all three of those factions, starting first with the Paul Ryan Budget Plan in the House back in April. Which he retracted to a certain point as well as other popular republicans in the party. So now his campaign has become over before it ever started. As well as the probably his Political Career as a whole, which is a shame in the way because he had the skills to be a very thoughtful politician that can get people to think about issues and ideas again and not just personalities.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from the John Birch Society on Newt Gingrich

Monday, August 1, 2011

Bill Buckley: Why Drugs Should be Legal: How the War on Drugs has Failed!



How has the War on Drugs in America has failed, well where should I start because people could write books answering that question and there have been books written answering that question. The answer to that question is fairly simple to me, because we've treated Narcotic Addicts like criminals instead of patients. That they they are, Drug Addicts who have just broken Narcotic Laws, like possessing or using narcotics, heroin, cocaine etc and I'm not talking about Narcotic Dealers. Are treated like criminals and sent to jail and prison for only hurting themselves and not other people. When someone can go to a bar and get wasted on alcohol and get a ride home because they are drunk out of their mind. But wake up with a hangover the next day and go about their lives. Even though they've committed the same action as someone who smoked one joint but are actually worst off by getting drunk and losing brain cells, felt a little different but didn't lose their senses at all. But the Pot Smoker could end up in jail and perhaps doing 3-5 in prison just for smoking and possessing a joint or perhaps both crimes. And lets say the drunk makes a bad call and decides to drive home instead, they would be arrested for Drunk Driving obviously but not getting drunk. Part of my point here is that the whole War on Drugs is nonsense because of how hypocritical it is. Sending Drug Addicts to prison, first of all for just hurting themselves, sends the message that Uncle Sam knows best and has to protect the people from themselves. Instead of treating adults like adults and letting us live our own lives and making these decisions for ourselves. Drug Addicts end up in prison where they get no help for their addiction and if anything are more addictive from the time they spent in prison. And have access to other narcotics in prison and get out more addictive and end up back in the prison with the same addiction. You want to know why we have 2M people in prison in America, just look at the population. A lot of them are in there for Narcotics Related Crimes and a lot of them are in there for using and possessing.

So this is what I would do, first Decriminalize Marijuana and treat it like alcohol, with the same regulations and taxes. This alone would save our Federal, State and Local Budgets on Law Enforcement because they would stop having to throw people in jail for doing something to themselves and not to others. And would free up valuable resources to for Law Enforcement to go after actual dangerous criminals who hurt innocent people.
I wouldn't Decriminalize Heroin, Cocaine, Meth etc because of the damage it would bring to our Health Care System and economy. With all the damage it would bring and the Health Care Costs that would come from it. And people who don't use these narcotics would end up paying for the Health Care Costs of the people who do use these narcotics. And a lot of them wouldn't be able to cover their own Health Care Costs. But I wouldn't throw these Narcotics Addicts in prison either, they would be forced into Drug Rehab and be able to keep themselves out of prison, if they complete rehab successfully. And not have it on their Criminal but Medical Record. And they would pay for their rehab one way or the other not Tax Payers. This would save our Corrections System a lot of time, money and resources. That they could concentrate on inmates who need to be in prison.

Libertarian Economist Milton Freidman once gave a speech about what he called "Bad Laws" and Bad Laws are laws that are written to protect people from themselves and not protecting innocent people from the harm of others. The War on Drugs in America and in other countries are the perfect example of Bad Laws. Because these are laws designed to protect people from themselves and why they don't work.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Bill Buckley opposing the War on Drugs