This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Reagan-Bush The Past and Present for the GOP: The Tea Party then and now

Even though the 1980 President Election was a landslide with Ron Reagan whipping President Jimmy Carter. Everything else about that election was fascinating, Senate Republicans winning control of the Senate. For the first time since 1952 and electing Howard Baker as Senate Leader. House Republicans have 190 plus seats for the first time since the early 1970s, even though they were still in the House Minority. Sen. Ted Kennedy taking on an Incumbent President in his own party and getting his head handed to him in the Democratic Primary's. The Republican Primary's that pitted the two top Leaders of the Republican Party against each other. Ron Reagan and George HW Bush, Reagan coming from the Tea Party Faction of the party. Or what would be the Tea Party today. And Reagan making that faction part of the establishment, until George Bush became President in 1989. Bush coming from what I would call the Eisenhower Faction of the party Strong defense, Internationalist Foreign Policy, Fiscally Conservative but not oppose to Tax Hikes to be used for Deficit Reduction.

The 1990 Deficit Reduction Act would indicate that included Budget Cuts as well but its the Tax Hikes that cost him support in the GOP. Which is how he got the Primary Challenge from Pat Buchanan in 1992 which divided the GOP that year and cost them the election. Bush moderate on Social Issues and a big believer in Environmental Protection as well as appointing David Suitor to the Supreme Court. How turned out to be a liberal perhaps as liberal as Justice Stephen Breyer. Again which cost President Bush more support in the GOP, support he couldn't afford to lose. Low turnout for the GOP in 1992 as well as another Fiscal Conservative running for President in Ross Perot.

But 1980 is where at the time the two main factions of the Republican Party came together. And one of the reasons why I believe Ron Reagan nominated George Bush to be his Vice President. Essentially the Tea Party led by Reagan and Bush the Leader of the Establishment Wing. Basically the Northeastern and Midwestern Republicans unlike in 1976 when these two wings were divided. And the Reagan Faction didn't support President Ford for President. Ron Reagan made his whole Presidential Campaign basically about the economy and how weak it was. With all of the people who were unemployed and had a clear plan on how to turn the economy around. With deep across the board Tax Cuts and this wasn't the area that George Bush was comfortable in debating.

George Bush was very knowledgeable about Economic Policy because he was a businessman. Buthe didn't believe in what Reagan was proposing and even labeled the Kemp-Roth plan as it was called. "Voodoo Economics" but knew the the Republican Party was behind Reagan and his Economic Program and that he was on defense. And was going to have to convince the GOP they were wrong about Reagan and his plan. As well as offer an Economic Program of his own. George Bush was fighting uphill the whole way during the 1980 Primary's. Until he became Reagan's Vice Presidential nominee in I believe July or August of 1980 and Reagan also considered former President Gerry Ford as his Vice President. But went with George Bush.

But what we saw in the Republican Party back in 1980, we've seen ever since, they've been the Tax Cut Party ever since. Thats how they get elected and have had so much success with this approach. That even the Democratic Party by in large in favor of Tax Cuts. But targeted Middle Class Tax Cuts, as well as Tax Cuts that encourage hiring. And assistance to Low Income people to get them working and become more Self Sufficient. Pre 1977-78 or so America wasn't a Tax Cut country at least at the National Level. And people like Ron Reagan, Bill Roth, Howard Jarvis and others changed the debate on that. To now we've been a Tax Cut country ever since.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video and clip from the 1980 Reagan-Bush Republican Primary Debate

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Howard Jarvis, Jerry Brown And The 1978 Election: What started the Modern Anti Tax Movement

If you look at what the Tea Party Movement is today and what the Howard Jarvis Anti Tax Movement was back in the late 1970s. Its very similar, government taxes and spends too much. There's where that term Tax and Spend came from, high Tax Rates were already unpopular by the mid 1970s. Both President Gerry Ford and Presidential Candidate Ron Reagan, made Tax Relief apart of their 1976 Presidential Campaigns. And Jimmy Carter becomes President in 1977, the economy tanks in 1978. Not because of President Carter but by 1978. Unemployment, Inflation and Interest Rates were all going up and Economic and Job Growth were going down. The opposite was happening in what you need for a strong healthy economy, the good numbers plummeting and bad numbers skyrocketing. And California felt this as bad as anyone similar to the economy there today. Howard Jarvis started an Anti Tax Association, took it to Sacramento as well as Washington. To campaign against high Tax Rates and campaign for Tax Cuts, that of course were put into place. In 1981 when Ron Reagan became President but President Reagan went a hell of a lot farther with their Tax Cuts. Prop 13 in 1978 was about limiting the growth of Property Taxes and cutting Property Taxes. But like a lot of things that get started in California, they tend to spread across the country. And Fiscal Conservatives started organizing and this had an effect on the 1978 General Elections in California. But also the Mid Term Elections in Washington, where republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate.

Ron Reagan being the smart politician he was and someone who was pro Low Taxes and Anti Big Government. Saw this movement coming but about fifteen years later in 1964. When he worked for Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign but it didn't become popular until 1978. When the economy dipped and people saw their taxes getting higher while their incomes fell. Because State Governments raised taxes to be able to finance their operations. With the sluggish economy and this is one of the things that started the Reagan Revolution in 1980. That brought him into the Presidency in a landslide over President Carter and saw the Republican Party pick up. Twenty plus seats in the House and eleven in the Senate which is a huge gain in the Senate. With only 33-34 Senate Seats up every two years and saw Senate Republicans win control of the Senate for the first time since 1952. And their largest number of seats in the House, I believe again since 1952. And Reagan got behind this Anti Tax Movement and made it a big part of his 1980 Presidential Campaign and spent those those years out of office. Planning the campaign that would lead to the Reagan Revolution.

A lot of people believe the Reagan Revolution was in 1980, but that when they got into power. With the White House and Senate and picked up some Governorships and State Legislatures. But I believe this movement started in 1978 that saw more Fiscal Conservatives come to power. And set up 1980 for the Republican Party even though they were still out of power in Washington. With democrats still having Congress and the White House but with smaller majority's. And the Republican Party has Howard Jarvis and his people to thank for that. For making the Anti Tax Movement look mainstream.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about California Proposition 13 in 1978

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Libya ponders Sharia law: Another Islamic Theocracy or more Moderate?

With todays announcement by the Libyan Transitional National Council that they are adopting Sharia Law. And going to use Sharia Law to influence how they write Libya's National Constitution. Looks bad from my perspective and looks like they may be on the road to Islamic Theocracy. Where Racial and Ethnic Minorities and Libya is a fairly diverse country made up of mostly arabs. But a diverse group of arabs and they also have an African Minority as well. And there been reports of African Libyans being Racially Clense. As well as women are essentially treated like garbage with strict conditions. On what they can do and how they live and when it comes to women, on things like how they can dress. And can they even go to school and get educated or not and this is not the direction that Libya should be headed in. Thats what happened in Afghanistan pre Afghan War that started in 2001, where people were literally murdered for things like adultery. Under the Taliban Regime and this not the direction Libya should be going in. They have so much more potential and can be so much better then that. And this is what exactly Iraq was able to avoid another country with a lot of potential. When they formed their new government and Constitution.

Iraq is now basically a Federal Democratic Republic post Saddam Hussein. Islam I believe is the Official Religion there but thats more of a recognition of how important Islam is considered to the Iraqi People. The Koran is not the Constitution of Iraq, their Governmental System is secular. Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic or State of Pakistan but they operate as a Constitutional Federal Republic. Which Separation of Powers and a Constitution and Pakistan is a huge Democracy of around 170M people. With a lot of potential to develop and currently has one of the fastest growing economy's in Asia as well as in the World. Turkey another overwhelmingly Muslim Country but its called the Republic of Turkey, a Parliamentary Democracy. And they are a large country of over 70M people similar to Iran, with a lot of potential to develop. And they have one of the fastest growing economy's in the Middle East as well as the World as well. This is the the direction that Libya should be looking at, Islam and Religion in general sure but don't use it to hold your people down. And the potential of this large country down, that only has 6M people but with a lot of potential to grow as a country.

What Libya should be looking at is a government thats Evidence Based that looks to do what's best for the entire country and to move it forward. Not things that could divide the country and potentially start new Civil Wars down the road, which is what happened in Afghanistan and may happen in Iran as well.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Libya adapting Sharia Law

FOX News: GOP Presidential Debate- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann: "Separation of Church & State is a Myth"

Source: FOX News- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, R, Minnesota-
Source: FOX News: GOP Presidential Debate- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann: "Separation of Church & State is a Myth"

When Representative Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson or Senator Mike Lee, say and of course former President Ronald Reagan and former Senator Barry Goldwater, these are all Republicans by the way, say they are anti-big government, I believe them and so should you. Because the know what individual liberty is all about. The liberty for free people to live their own individual lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. It's really simple, if people want to engage in activities that are unhealthy for them, that's their right. Watch bad movies, that's their right, even things like cheating on your spouse, or if you're Mormon, spouses. Sorry bad joke, (but at least I liked it) because they know of course adultery is where you're hurting someone. But they are smart enough to understand that the criminal justice system is not the right venue for this kind of thing. And that these matters can be handled in civil court. They also understand that individual liberty is more than just about economic liberty, or religious liberty for Protestants, or the right to protest against things that right-wingers are against. That it's also about social liberty as well, the liberty for free people to live their own lives. Again as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty in a criminal way. And things that qualify as criminal activity are pretty obvious.

Every time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann or Senator Jim Dimint complain about the overreach of big government, or here them speak in favor of states rights, I gotta laugh. Because either they are lying, or they don't know what they are talking about, or don't completely understand what they are talking about. Which is pretty sad considering they are both Members of Congress and pretty influential Members of Congress, at least in the Republican Party. Because what they are talking about is big government as it relates to the economy. Complaining about overspending, taxes and regulations on the private sector. They are not talking about big government as it relates to sexuality. Where they both support a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. Representative Bachmann and I believe Senator  Dimint both support outlawing pornography. In 2010 Senator Dimint came out in favor of outlawing adultery and making it a Federal offense. What happened to individual liberty, or States Rights. There, thats an example of what big government looks like.

When it comes to individual liberty, as long as you're doing what the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives approve of, you're OK. But when you don't, even if you're not hurting anyone with what you're doing, you got a major problem and could be found libel for a criminal offense. That's not Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Ron Paul's, Gary Johnson's, Mike Lee's and others definition of individual liberty. When someone tells you they are against big government, why don't you see if they understand what they are talking about. Because you may be surprised in what you find out.

It would a dereliction of duty if I didn't comment on what Representative Bachmann said calling Separation of Church and State a myth. Again we're talking about a lawyer here who doesn't understand the First Amendment. Perhaps it didn't exist when she was in law school and she's come back in another life. Or they didn't teach her about the First Amendment in law school. But, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts known as the establishment clause and free exercise clause. But at least she's qualified to run for President, even if she's not qualified for the job itself.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Bob Dole with David Brinkley 1988: The Campaign that got away

1988 was a fascinating Presidential Election for several reasons and in both parties. But one aspect of that Presidential Campaign Season was the contest. Between George HW Bush and Bob Dole. Two of the most powerful republicans in the country and Public Officials in the country. George Bush being Vice President at that time and Bob Dole being the Senate Minority Leader. The two most powerful republicans that were eligible at the time to run for President. Squaring off against each other and they had a great contest from last couple of months. Of 1987 to the early months of 1988, after Vice President Bush won New Hampshire and I believe South Carolina. And had it not been for a very negative campaign that Vice President Bush ran against Minority Leader Dole. Bob Dole probably wins those primary's and wins the 1988 Republican Nomination for President.

Bob Dole had the respect and trust of the Republican Party in 1987-88 and had it for much longer having built up a very strong Conservative Record in Congress. For at the time 27 years and put together a fairly successful resume as well. Except for being President Ford's Vice Presidential Nominee in 1976. But he was Chairman of the Republican Party from 1971-73, got reelected to the Senate in 1974. Which thanks to Watergate was an awful year for Congressional Republicans. Where they dropped a bunch of seats in both the House and Senate. Sen. Dole was Ranking Members meaning Minority leader of the Finance Committee. During the Carter Administration and then Chairman of that Committee from 1981-85. During the Reagan Revolution and then became Senate Leader from 1985-87. And then when he lost his Senate Majority to Senate Democrats in 1986, became Minority Leader in 1987. Bob Dole not only had one of the strongest Conservative Records in Congress, both in the House and Senate. So Minority Leader Dole was very well respected in Congress as well in the Republican Party because of his Conservative Record. But also because he was very effective as a Legislature getting Legislation passed and someone President Reagan and even Vice President Bush could count on.

George Bush was seen as a very loyal and very effective as well as powerful Vice President under President Reagan. And had a long impressive record and resume, that included Private Sector Experience. He was President of his own Oil Company in Texas which is why today he's one of the wealthiest people in America. As his family, Legislative experience in the House from 1967-71, Executive Experience, UN Ambassador from 1971-73. More Political Experience Chairman of the Republican Party from 1973-75, Director of the CIA and Ambassador to the Peoples Republic of China in the Ford Administration. Ran unsuccessfully for President in 1979-80. But ran well enough to be Ron Reagan's Vice President in 1980 where he served two terms there. But was untrusted and seen as a weak centrist by the Republican Base even though he had the respect of the Republican Establishment.

George Bush saw himself as a bit of an underdog going into the 1988 Presidential Campaign or at least as someone who had to get by Bob Dole. In order to win the Republican Nomination and I believe calculated early on, that the GOP liked Dole more then him. And that to beat Dole, he had to make the GOP dislike Dole more then himself. Which is how they were able to destroy Bob Dole's Presidential Campaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina. With Negative Campaign after Negative Campaign. And that was George Bush's first test he passed to becoming President of the United States. Being tough enough to literally take down his opponent.

Click on the link of the blog to see Bob Dole on ABC This Week from 1988

Saturday, October 22, 2011

"SNP Leader Alex Salmond defiant on Scottish Army": What a Scottish State could look like

When you look at the United Kingdom of Britain you see four Native Peoples living there. The english of course living in England, The scottish living in Scotland, the welch living in Wales and the irish living in North Ireland. These people are spread out and of course Britain is a diverse country both racially and ethnically. But Britain is still about 80% english and around 10% scottish, I believe the scots are the largest Ethnic Minority in Britain though. But even with all of this diversity and the fact that Britain is basically made up of four different Nations. And those States believe they can all govern themselves, Britain has a very Centralized Government. Not even a Federal Government but one Government that governs the whole country. And controls most of the Tax Revenue, one of the reasons why Britain's taxes are so high even compared with the European Union. Because their National Government controls so much of their Tax Revenue, unlike the European States. Where most of them have Federal Governments as well as State or Provincial Government as well as Local Governments. And I believe this is a big reason why Scotland, Wales and North Ireland. Which are all basically Provinces or States inside of Britain. Have all been calling for more autonomy in how they govern themselves.

These States would like to raise their own Tax Revenue. Run their own schools, Law Enforcement, build their own infrastructure, run their own Healthcare etc. The things that most State or Provincial Governments get to do as a State or Province. A lot of things that Canadian Provinces get to do or American States get to do as well. Instead of all the power in Britain being centered in London at Westminster, that Britain goes to a to more of a Federal System. Where England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland have much more authority to govern themselves. And they all have their own State Governments effectively with an Executive and a Assembly and their own Judicial System. And that the UK Government is there to do what most National Governments do but the States are able to govern themselves as well. With these States still being able to send their Reps and Lords to the US Parliament. And have their representation there and work in partnership to some degree in how the country is governed. Instead of the UK Government trying to govern this big country of 62M people small in land but with a large population. By themselves and doing everything on their own.

If the UK Government would give their States autonomy in how they run their affairs, then I believe there would be less call for Independence for these States. Because they would feel that they would have more of a say in how they govern themselves and more freedom to live their own lives.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of SNP Leader Alex Salmond on Scottish Independence

Friday, October 21, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Percy in 1967- A Foreign Policy For The GOP

U.S. Senator Charles Percy-
This idea that a stronger America makes our foreign policy stronger, because it allows our opponents less ammunition to call us hypocritical, because they can't say when we criticize them, that they shouldn't criticize us because they have similar problems, like in poverty and human rights, is a powerful argument. And something I have a lot of respect for and could be used not just as a foreign policy, but an economic policy as well. Because it relates to how we deal with other countries, but also how we govern our own country as well. For a country to have a foreign policy that has the most influence possible.

You have to first be strong at home. Because for one your country would be better off. Because your economy will be stronger, more people will be working and making more money. Your infrastructure will be stronger, which will give you more credibility when you decide you should try to influence other countries in how they govern themselves. Or how they try to influence other countries as well. And you'll also have the resources to help those other countries. Because again you'll have the resources to help them and people like Communists, socialists, theocrats, whoever are against what you're trying to do. Will again have less ammunition in how they critique you. Because they'll have less credibility in how they critique you.

America proved in the Cold War with Russia that we were stronger in that war, when our economy was stronger. And we were improving our own situation as it related to human rights. Especially as it related to civil rights like in the 1960s. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Law of 1968. We were better in fighting the Cold War with Russia in the 1950s, 60s and 80s, because our economy was strong for the most part in those entire decades. And had the resources that we needed to combat Russia because of our strong economy.

Especially going up against Russia that had a communist system when they were the Soviet Union. And had very little freedom, economic or otherwise. And despite their vast natural resources that Russia has always had, they had a weak economy for the most part during this whole time. Especially compared with the European Union, United Kingdom and United States. And simply didn't have the resources to keep up with America and the West during this whole period. The best way to have the most influence in the world as possible, is to be strong yourself. And then you can say, "you should try this because we've proven it works." Ronald Reagan called this foreign policy Peace through Strength, but he was referring to the military. But Peace through Strength can also relate to economic policy as well. Which is what Senator Chuck Percy was referring to in this video.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

"ATR's John Kartch Explains How Harry Reid's Tax Hikes": What a Millionaires Tax would do

President Obama and Senate Leader Reid have come out in favor and have proposed what's called a Millionaires Tax. Which would raise taxes on anyone making a million$ a year or more. To pay for the American Jobs Act which has now been broken into several different bills. After the Senate GOP Leadership blocked the whole Legislation last week. As well pay for long term Debt and Deficit Reduction by raising taxes on individuals making a million$ a year or more. An additional 5% increase in Tax Burden that these people would be required to pay. To help pay for the AJA and to help fiance Debt and Deficit Reduction and people who quite frankly can afford to pay this tax. Really the only group of people that have done well economically the last ten years and have seen their incomes go up. While everyone else has seen their incomes stagnate or go down. And now there's a growing Bi Partisan Consensus that there's not only a need for Tax Reform. That would eliminate most if not all Tax Loopholes and even raise the top Tax Rate at least in the short term. But then lower all Tax Rates in the long term to help pay for Debt and Deficit Reduction. This is something that Sen. Tom Coburn one of the most Fiscally Conservative Members of Congress. Has already acknowledged as well as the Bi Partisan Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission, as well as the Rivlin-Domenichi Commission as well.

There's only so much revenue that can be cut in the non Medicare and Social Security Social Insurance programs. That by the way only represent about 15% of a 3.7T$ Federal Budget with a 14T$ National Debt and a 1.8T$ National Deficit. Defense, Social Security and Medicare represent around 2T$ in the 3.7T$ Federal Budget and about 60% of the Federal Budget. I hope I haven't put you asleep with all of these numbers by the way. We are always going to have those programs, Congress will never allow for those programs to disappear. But since they all represent a solid majority of the Federal Budget. We have to find a way to make savings in those programs without hurting them. As well as Tax Reform that eliminates Tax Loopholes in the short and long term, as well as raises taxes on the wealthy. Million$ a year or more, not for new spending other then the AJA. But to help pay down the National Debt and get our debt and deficit under control. So we can have a strong growing economy in the future. A Millionaires Tax is exactly that a Tax Hike on people who can afford to pay more in taxes. At a time when we have large debt and deficit's.

There's not the votes in Congress right now to pass a Millionaires Tax and the President and Congressional Democrats understand this. But something they want to have and use as well as take to the people when they finally get around. To reaching a Debt and Deficit Reduction agreement with Congressional Republicans.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the Millionaires Tax from FBN

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley, Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment in 1973

I believe all good Americans across the political spectrum believe in equal rights for all people. That there’s now a consensus that’s still growing as we get younger and more liberal as a country that we shouldn’t be allowed especially the public sector, to be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, color, creed, nationality, religion and now even sexuality. That in a liberal democracy like America, free people meaning free people not a particular type of people, have the constitutional right to live freely and not be harassed by government.

No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights. And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like US Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone. The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.

People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered. The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

"We the People Will Legalize Marijuana, not President Obama!": Why the people may get what they want

Here the reasons why Marijuana will be Decriminalized in America, young people, people in my generation and young support it. Overwhelmingly, now apparently according to the Gallup Poll 50% of americans are in favor of Decriminalizing Marijuana. And not all americans are under fifty, a lot of americans aren't. We have 2.4M people in prison in America or under some form of Public Supervision, the largest Prison Population in the World. On a Per Capita basis, hundreds of thousands of those people are under supervision. Because of Drug Related crimes, are country is essentially broke. With a 14T$ debt in a 14T$ economy and most of our States are broke as well and looking to cut spending everywhere. Including in corrections and States like California are now looking to release Non Violent Offenders. Like Drug Offenders and this is already happening in California as GOV Jerry Brown announced a couple of weeks ago. Americans tend to want to be able to control what they put in their body's and how they live their lives. As that Gallup Poll suggests and of course there's the hypocrisy of our War on Drugs. Where we essentially have three drugs in America that represent about the same amount of Health Risks. Alcohol, tobacco and marijuana but two of them legal, of course alcohol and tobacco. But of course we have Marijuana Prohibition that we've had since 1937 a few years after we lifted Alcohol Prohibition. Our Federal Government has a history of trying protect us from ourselves instead of bad actions people do to others.

Young people are generally liberal to libertarian with their Political Views, I'm 35 and towards the end of Generation X. And I'm a pretty good example of this, this has been our history as a country. As we've moved along we tend to be more liberal and want government to have less control of our lives. Americans are waking up to the stupidity and hypocrisy of our "War on Drugs" a war that we've been fighting for forty years now. Again the 2.4M people in prison with all of these bankrupt governments in the country. They are now looking at whether its good Fiscal Policy, to have so many Non Violent Drug Offenders. In overcrowded prisons that are designed for Violent Offenders that need to be there instead. Again we have all of these bankrupt governments and these governments are looking for more revenue. Budget Cuts and Tax Hikes, instead of cutting corrections and Public Education. Why not tax marijuana, a tax those people rather pay, then losing their job or paying more in Income Taxes.

The reasons why we won't Decriminalize Marijuana, gets to politics not policy. Public Officials not wanting to look "Soft on Crime" and "Soft on the War on Drugs". Especially Public Officials who have Conservative Voters, who tell them they want government out of their wallets. But don't mind telling people what they can put into their own body's, apparently Big Government doesn't sound do bad to them.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about Marijuana Decriminalization

Monday, October 17, 2011

Larry Arnn: On the Declaration and Constitution: Why the US Constitution is so important

The United States has a Constitution so americans and government know exactly their liberties and powers are. So new authority isn't drawn up as we go along and so that government can't take peoples liberties away from them. That there are laws and procedures that government has to follow before it takes peoples liberty away. And even once people have been arrested, they still have certain basic fundamental Constitutional Rights that have to be respected. And the main reason why its so difficult to amend the US Constitution, two thirds majority in both Chambers of Congress. As well as two thirds of each State having to approve the propose Amendment to the Constitution. Is so people who perhaps don't respect our Constitutional Rights as much as they should be respected. Aren't able to mess with the Constitution, that there needs to be more of a consensus. To change our Constitution and restrict our Constitutional Rights. And the main reason for our Constitution, which I consider the most liberal document ever written. Is became it was written by liberals and libertarians our Founding Fathers. And when you get people like that in the same room together, you should expect a Constitution that looks like what they wrote. A very Individualist Document.

The United State was created to get away from the United Kingdom which was Dictatorship in the form of a Monarchy. That heavily taxed people in the American Colony's, without representing them in Parliament. That restricted what religion they could practice if any and basically their ability to live their own lives. And these eventual americans wanted to get away from this authoritarianism so they can have Individual Freedom. Thats why they wrote the US Constitution and Bill of Rights listed with a lot of Individual Liberties. A lot of liberty for people to live their own lives, not a perfect document obviously. Thats why it has a bunch of amendments to it but still they did a hell of a job. And gave us a lot more freedom then we were getting from the United Kingdom and it really was a Declaration of Independence. Because we were Declaring our Independence from the United Kingdom and wanted our freedom with the United States. And our Founding Fathers created the foundation for creating the greatest country in the World. Because it was based on Individual Freedom. I just wish they declared Individual Liberty for all people in America including the African Slaves. But again they were not perfect.

Without the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the United States is not a Liberal Democracy. Because then our liberties could be taken away from us. Probably my Majority Vote and we would become more of a Majoritarian Democracy. Which is a different form of government then a Republic in the form of a Liberal Democracy. Which thanks to the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives us that.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the US Constitution from the Hoover Institution

Sunday, October 16, 2011

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor Discusses the GOP's Plan for Jobs": The different plans

Looks to me that the House Republican plan to get the economy going again. Is centered around cutting regulations, hopefully not around Wall Street. Because we've seen what happens in the last ten years what happens when you don't regulate Wall Street. The Wall Street Scandals of 2001-02 and 2008. That led to the "Great Recession" that we are still three years later struggling to recover from. Free Trade Congress just passed three Trade Deals last week and where's the rest of their plan. The Tax Cut plans have come not from their House Leadership but from. Rep. Paul Ryan Chairman of the Budget Committee as well as some of their Presidential Candidates. Like Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. The only plans that relate to the economy that House Republicans have drafted or pass. Relate to the Federal Debt and Deficit, meaning cutting them. But those are long term plans to get our debt and deficit under control over the next ten years. They don't have much if anything to do with creating jobs in the next year or so for 2012. The only Economic Plan thats come out of the Federal Government, that has Tax Cuts in it has come from President Obama. Someone the Far Right likes to call a socialist, Tax Cuts are suppose to be a republican issue. I'm not saying that Tax Cuts are the Magic Bullet for Economic and Job Growth in America. But Tax Cuts have always been the Magic Bullet for Economic and Job Growth for conservatives. For more then thirty years now, going back to the mid and late 70s.

President Obama's Economic Plan is built around Infrastructure Investment, Middle Class Tax Cuts, Small Business Tax Relief and Free Trade. He's been successful so far in one area, Free Trade with the deals that were passed last week. The President wants to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would take care of the financing of our Infrastructure Investment. That would be Self Financed and be independent of the Federal Government. As well as extend the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and extend it to employers as well. I wish he would go farther by maybe cutting the 10% Tax Bracket to 5%. To encourage Consumer Spending as well as Debt Relief for the Middle Class, let them deduct their debt from their taxes. As well as reforming our Unemployment Insurance System, making it proactive by turning them into Employment Centers. That would help Unemployed Workers find jobs, giving them assistance to go back to schools and get retrained. I believe the House Republican Leadership would be open to that idea as is the President.

House Speaker Boehner has already expressed interest in Infrastructure Investment as part of an Economic Plan. And is interested in creating a six year Highway bill and President Obama has expressed interest in Regulatory Reform. So maybe there's a deal that can be reached between the House and White House. As well as between Senate Democrats and Republicans.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of House Leader Eric Cantor on FNS with Chris Wallace

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Implications of Watergate

Source: Firing Line- William F. Buckley-
Source: Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Implications For Watergate- May 16th, 1973

The Watergate scandal from the summer of 1972 to the summer of 1974, was a horrible political scandal. That not only lasted two years, brought down a presidency, a president that was reelected by a landslide. Distracted the country from many other problems that we were facing. With a weakening economy, rising unemployment, rising health care costs, more people being without health insurance, an energy shortage, trying to get out of Vietnam, etc. It happened at about the worst time that any political scandal could hit us, where we had other issues that needed to be addressed.

And perhaps the worst part of the Watergate scandal, is that it never had to happen or become a scandal. It was completely unnecessary. President Nixon would’ve been reelected by a landslide in 1972 anyway. Had he announced what he knew about Watergate as he knew it. And had come clean his administration probably would’ve got some heat from it at least in the short-term. With Congressional investigations, but President Nixon would’ve done himself and the country a lot of good in the long-term. Because he would’ve been able to put Watergate behind us, because he would’ve been able to end his part of the scandal early on. Because the country would’ve known that he wasn’t guilty of anything. And he would’ve been able to move on with his presidency and attempt to address some of these issues.

Without the Watergate scandal as far as President Nixon covering it up, he would’ve gone down as a very successful President. Perhaps one of the best president’s America has ever had, with all of his foreign policy success’s. And this would’ve given him an opportunity. to address some other issues. As they relate to economic policy and getting the economy going again. Creating a national energy policy, which President Nixon actually did make an attempt at, as well as health care and Welfare reform. And perhaps campaign for more Republican Congressional candidates. Instead of the Republican Party dropping back to where they were in the 1960s as far as seats in Congress. In the House and Senate with Democrats having large majority’s in both chambers. As a result of the 1974 mid-term elections.

But because of the Watergate coverup, that’s the main if not only political issue that not only the Federal Government was dealing with, but what the country was paying attention to. Including even watching the Watergate hearings on TV. As a result of the Watergate scandal and coverup, the Republican Party got hammered in the 1974 mid-term elections. Democrats picked up something like thirty seats in the House and six in the Senate to add to their majority’s. And of course Democrats won the White House in 1976 while retaining their large majority’s in Congress. But thanks to President Carter, Republicans got a lot of those seats back plus some new ones in 1978 and 1980.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Rep. Jesse Jackson: President Obama should "Declare a National Emergency": This could bring Constitutional Objections

Rep. Jesse Jackson who's not shy when expressing his opinions, he's one of the most vocal Members of Congress we have. As far as expressing exactly what he's feeling, his opinions are always clear. And I'll give him a lot of credit for that, he's one of the most honest Members of Congress that we have. Which might not sound like much, I mean we are talking about Congress here. But its true whether you agree or disagree with Rep. Jackson from Chicago. I generally disagree with him, Rep. Jackson who's with the Progressive Caucus, a bit left of myself. And I'm a Liberal Democrat but what Rep. Jackson is talking about here is having President Obama essentially. Declare a State of Emergency as it relates to the American Economy. That our economy is so bad that so many people are unemployed right now, that the Administration. Can't wait for Congress to get around to solving our economic problems. That President Obama has to step in and solve these problems on his own. And essentially try to solve these problems and implement his American Jobs Act by Executive Order. Executive Orders aren't laws, they can be repealed simply by Congress. The House and Senate coming together to repeal them and with a Divided Congress, thats not likely. Unless the President writes and Executive Order thats clearly Unconstitutional and is very unpopular. The problem that the President would have is essentially implementing new law constitutional or not.

Rep. Jackson has called Congress a "Rebellious Congress" similar to the times of the Civil War. That Congress wants to prevent the President from passing any new agenda. By essentially not doing anything, that the House has blocked the American Jobs Act. By not taking it up and the Senate Republican Leadership. Even though they are the Senate Minority, has blocked the AJA with the Cloture Rule. It takes sixty votes in the Senate to debate or pass anything. So what Rep. Jackson is saying is that President Obama should circumvent Congress. And implement the AJA on his own administratively on his own and bypass Congress. Saying that Congress won't get around to passing the AJA. Or any jobs bill, we have almost no Economic or Job Growth in the Country right now. We have 9.1% Unemployment. And that the President should declare a National Economic Emergency. And deal with these issues on his own with his Administration because no one else is prepared to deal with these issues. This is a very risky advice that could bring Congressional Investigations.

I don't see how the President could do this without bringing a lot of heat to him and causing a lot of political problems for him. That President Obama doesn't need, what the Administration should be doing. Is trying to pass the AJA in several different steps, focusing on Infrastructure Investment in one step. Regulatory Reform in another step, Tax Reform in another step. Congress has already passed three Trade Agreements and then Tax Reform. Thats the best shot that President Obama has at passing a jobs bill.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of Rep. Jackson on the Daily Caller

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Representative Paul McCloskey & Allard Lowenstein- Dump Richard Nixon?

Richard Nixon, wasn't a very popular President his first couple years as President, with the Vietnam War that he inherited and with the anti-war movement that was going on as well. President Nixon inherited a lot from President Johnson when he became President. And made a lot of tough decisions, like expanding the Vietnam War in an attempt to bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table. Which in the end worked. But he paid a heavy price for it politically and wasn't really a lock to get reelected until the spring or summer of 1972. After the Nixon Administration reached and agreement to end the Vietnam War with North Vietnam.

President Nixon, also had two successful foreign policy trips to Russia and China and opening up relations with both countries. The first American President to arrive in either country. Dick Nixon was about twenty years ahead of him time on foreign policy. Whether you like him or not or are in between, you have to give him credit for that. He's one of the most intelligent politicians and President's we've ever had. And for that reason he could see how things were developing and how they were going to look in the future. And this "Dump Nixon" movement in the Republican Party must of been a reaction from I guess the libertarian wing of the party.

Republicans who believed the Vietnam War was a mistake and one of the reasons why they elected Dick Nixon was to end the Vietnam War. But he expanded that war before he ended it. They must been the people behind the "Dump Nixon" movement. And thats not what they were looking for, but a complete end to the war. Its a huge risk to take on your own President the leader of your party, when he's in his first term. Which is exactly what President Nixon was by 1971. Because again President Nixon was no lock to get reelected in 1971, he wasn't very popular at this point.

Also the Democratic Party still has solid majorities in Congress. Both in the House and Senate and losing the presidency in 1972, which of course didn't happen, but had that happen, the Republican Party would once again find themselves out-of-power in the Federal Government. Just like in the 1960s when Congressional Democrats added to their majorities. Republicans had to retain the White House in 1972 to further their momentum that they made in the South in the mid and late 1960s. I wasn't aware there was a "Dump Nixon" movement. I didn't believe Republicans ever did things like this. The only other time I'm aware of this happening was in 1992. When Pat Buchanan and his supporters took on President George H.W. Bush and ran against him in the Republican primary's and had some success. This kinda thing generally happens in the Democratic Party, when the Far Left believes the President is not progressive enough like today.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Wilbur Cohen and The Great Society in 1967

One of the things if not the main thing that united the Republican Party in the mid and late 1960s, was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda and all the social insurance programs that came with it. Similar to President Clinton in 1993-94 with his deficit reduction plan, crime bill and failed health care reform attempt. Conservatives in America saw the growth of the Federal Government in the 1960s as a threat to individual freedom. Which is why they united behind Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and conservative candidates for Congress in 1966 and 68. And why they united behind Richard Nixon for President in 1968.

The GOP saw the Johnson Administration wanting to make America like Europe with a large welfare state. With things like Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Public Housing, increasing public education funding from the Federal Government, etc. And conservatives in America like Bill Buckley and others saw all of these programs as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. And didn’t like the new tax hikes that came from Medicare, especially since America was a fairly low tax country. Pre-FDR New Deal, LBJ Great Society and still a low tax country today compared with Europe. But Classical Conservatives and Libertarians, still believe that America is still overtaxed as a country.

American Conservatives wanted to get behind candidates and politicians who would work to downsize or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society. And they saw the Johnson Administration and Secretary Wilbur Cohen of the Department of Health, Welfare and Education, as people who wanted to make America more like Europe from the Federal Government. At the expense of individual freedom and state and local governments and try to centralize the power with the Federal Government.

This is how Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and other Conservatives got into to power. And how Dick Nixon got back into power in 1968 and how more Conservative Republicans got elected to Congress in the late 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And how the Republican Party became relevant again in the Federal Government and across America. By running against the New Deal and Great Society and saying that they want to change it and still try to solve the same problems. But do it in a way that gives the people more individual freedom in how they solve their own problems.

In some ways the Goldwater defeat in 1964 and the LBJ Great Society was great for the Republican Party. Because it brought them together and united them behind the same agenda. And why you saw more conservatives run for Congress and get elected especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Like Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Al Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and may others. Because the Republican Party came together behind the same agenda. And how the Rockefeller faction of the party almost faded away.

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?

By the time the 1964 presidential campaign came around, the Republican Party was already in bad shape. They lost the presidency in 1960, Democrats controlled Congress with huge majorities. And even added to those majorities in 1962 and the classical conservative base of the Republican Party, felt the needed to fight back and take control of the party as they did in 1964. After what they saw as moderate leadership from the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. And they saw Vice President Richard Nixon as a moderate presidential candidate.

This is how Senator Barry Goldwater became the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and one reason why Dick Nixon didn't run for president in 1964 and why Governor Nelson Rockefeller was treated so badly at the 1964 Republican Convention. Because a new political faction was in charge of the GOP. That believed the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was moving the Federal Government too far away from federalism. And growing the Federal Government too rapidly with the Great Society and they felt the need to step up and nominate someone who they saw as a Classical Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Who would bring the Federal Government back in line with the U.S. Constitution.

This is how exactly Senator Goldwater ran his presidential campaign and even had some success in the South. And won some Southern states that the Democratic Party use to own. 1964 was the start of a movement in American politics, that started to move the South from being a purely Democratic region and made it more competitive for Republican candidates. Which is one reason how Dick Nixon was elected President in 1968. And got reelected in a landslide in 1972 and how the Republican Party won 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88. Four of those elections that they won were by landslides.

The Republican Party paid a heavy price for Senator Goldwater's landslide lost in 1964, but for only two years. From 1965-67 where the Democratic Party had the presidency and huge majority's in Congress, but it was a short two years, because by 1966, President Johnson was starting to become unpopular. And Congressional Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Republicans were still in the minority in both chambers of Congress, but back in the ballpark, with a shot at making Congress competitive.

Because in 1968 Republicans picked up five more seats in the House to give them 192 and seven in the Senate to give them 43. So the democrats no longer had such huge majorities in Congress and be able to over run the Minority Party. Because the Republican Party now had new states and districts that were put in play for them. In some ways the 1964 general elections was a great defeat for the Republican Party.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1968: Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer?

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress. With 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

House Republicans, a very small minority party. Only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford. Who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States. Who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this, but Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor. The Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

Having been thrown out of power in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections. So the Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

Which is one of the reasons why Representative Gerald Ford beat then House Minority Leader Charlie Halak. Because House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful. Because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Barbara P Bush: "Cutting Foreign Aid would have 'enormous implications' for US": How Foreign Aid should work

I believe in Foreign Aid if its done right and goes where the money is needed to help the most people as possible. That can't survive without it, people who aren't a threat to America. Especially if they get a chance at life from the start, enough quality food, quality Health Care, quality education etc. And as long as its targeted to the countries that can use this aid to help their people. Developing Countries with responsible Central Governments. Foreign Aid shouldn't be for Developed Countries that can take care of themselves. Or for countries that sponsor terrorism and oppress their people. Iran would and Syria would be excellent examples of that but South Africa. Would be an example of where Foreign Aid can pay off and not only benefit South Africans. But benefit America as well and make sure that we continue as valuable allies. Pro Democracy, Economic Freedom, Minority Rights, Anti Authoritarian Power, Partners in the War on Terror etc. As well as Trade Partners with two countries where the economy's are growing and developing. And where this Economic Development benefits both nations.

This is an example of where Foreign Aid can only benefit the giver but the receiver as well. Bad Foreign Aid would be Foreign Aid that goes to countries and then they either sponsor terrorism. Or harbor terrorists in their countries, where those terrorists are threats to America. Pakistan would be a good example of that and its time America reexamines its relationship with Pakistan as well. Or where the Foreign Aid goes to corrupt governments and those people pocket the money. Or give that money to terrorists, Africa would be a good example of that as well. Foreign Aide should be about helping Developing Countries, develop, Central America, South America, Africa wherever. Helping them develop their security so they can defend themselves. From terrorism or other countries, Columbia would be an excellent example of this. But also their economy's. Debt Relief, helping them sustain their Federal Budgets so their governments can meet the needs of the country.

Columbia is an excellent example of this but also helping them develop their Public Infrastructure. Roads, bridges, airports, dams, schools, hospitals. Public Education, Health Care System, Safety Net etc, so they can develop their economy's. That can benefit most of their nation but also we can have a Trading Partner. With a country that can afford to purchase our products and have another partner in the War on Terror. Again Columbia is an excellent example of this.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video about the need for Foreign Aid

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

UK PM David Cameron: we will never join the euro: The UK is not the EU

Its actually probably a good thing right now that the United Kingdom is not part of the European Monetary Policy right now. And forget about the politics or National and Ethnic Pride that brits have. The States in the European Union are going through far worst fiscal problems then Britain. For one Britain acted on there's a lot earlier and the Cameron Government has paid a large price for that politically. And the European Union is still trying to decide how to move on their debt and deficit issues and get them under control. Greece is probably in worst shape then anybody and having to deal with the International Monetary Fund or IMF. Had Britain been part of the EMF all along, they would probably be in the same shape as Europe. Because they wouldn't of ever been able to act as quickly. So when Prime Minister David Cameron says that Britain will never be part of the Euro, at least while he's Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. He's dead on and Monetary Policy is just one reason. Britain used to be an Empire the most powerful country in the World. That of course has lost a lot of that power the last two hundred years. While the European Union has gained a lot of power the last sixty years and if they were to ever unify. And become a Nation State would be one of of the top two most powerful countries in the World. After the get their debt and deficits under control.

The United Kingdom still sees itself as a World Power and to a certain extent still is. More influential then Germany, France, Italy. And their other European Neighbors on their own and want to hold on to that power on their own. Besides, the United Kingdom just Mainland Britain. Is made up four peoples with their own lands, England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland. And at least three of them would like their Independence from the United Kingdom. Similar feeling that americans have before their Revolutionary War that led to the United States being formed. So the last things that the english, scottish, welch and irish want is to go from being part of one Empire. In the United Kingdom to another in the European Union, or United Federation of Europe. Or what ever Europe would call themselves. But the United Kingdom would be a great ally with this new Federal Republic, if Europe ever united. Because they have similar interests and issues they both have to deal with.

As long as the the European Union has the EMU or one day even unifies, the UK will still be the UK a separate country on their own. As they should be, they do very well on their own. And are still a World Power with plenty of influence and are still the United States strongest ally not including Canada.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video of UK Prime Minister David Cameron on the Euro

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Federalist Society: Redistribution of Wealth: How much Redistribution should we have

If you understand the actual definition of Redistribution of Wealth and not the political definition of it. You know that there's always been at least some amount of Wealth Redistribution. And chances are if you live in America, that you believe in at least some form of Wealth Redistribution. If you go by the political definition of Wealth Redistribution, then you got this idea. That its about robbing the rich to give to the poor. But again if you know the actual definition of Wealth Redistribution, you know that it essentially means. To take money from one area to give to another and if done right. You take money from an area that has a large surplus of money to give to an area that doesn't have enough. To use as examples, building schools, Military Bases, roads, bridges etc. Is Wealth Redistribution, because your taking money from New York to build a road or bridge in Alabama or use whatever two States you want to use. Or if people are unemployed and are collecting Unemployment Insurance. Your taking money from people who are currently working, to give that money to people who are unemployed. Or with Social Security and Medicare, your taking money from people who are currently working. To help finance the retirements of people who are retired. These are all forms of Wealth Redistribution and if your against these things, then you would be in a small minority. And even in a small minority in the Republican Party.

The question to me is not whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and have always had. The questions for me would be, how much of it should we have. And what we should be using it for and since Wealth Redistribution is usually talked about in how it relates to poverty. I'll focus on that in this post and go from there and to start out I'm not in favor of. Taking money from the rich or anyone else, to take care of the poor. But what I am in favor of is using some of this revenue, to help the poor empower themselves. To become Self Sufficient and that gets to Temporary Financial Assistance. Education and Job Placement, things like Welfare to Work or TANF, as well as retraining Low Income workers on the job. So they can move up in their company's and not be stuck working dead in jobs their whole lives. And retraining Unemployed Workers so they can can get jobs in other fields. Especially if they lost a job or in a job in a field thats gone. And is not coming back as a result of Free Trade or Company Relocation. And doing all of these things cost resources and the money has to come from somewhere. And I rather take that money from America then borrow it from Russia or China.

Its not a question of whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and we've always had. But its a question of how much Wealth Redistribution we should have. And what's the purpose of it and how we can best spend this money. That will do the most good for the country.

Click on the link of the blog to see a video from the Federalist Society on Redistribution of Wealth

Monday, October 3, 2011

The John Birch Society: "Robert Welch's Amazingly Accurate 1958 Predictions": The Forerunner For The Tea Party?

Source: JBS- Robert Welch-
Source: The John Birch Society: Robert Welch's Amazingly Accurate 1958 Predictions

The classical conservative movement didn’t start in 2009 with the Tea Party movement. Certainly not in 2000 with George W Bush, who had a neoconservative presidency, or in 1994 with the Gingrich Revolution. Or in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution or in 1964 with the Goldwater Campaign. The current thinking of classical conservatism goes back to the early 1900s or longer. That was about protecting individual freedom and constitutional rights and fiscal responsibility and having a foreign policy that’s based only on protecting our own national security. Thats centered a lot around the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which Classical Conservatives and Libertarians. Believe limits what the Federal Government can do and this movement really started to grow in the 1930s and 40s.

Thanks President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and then they saw the growth of the United Nations and other international organizations post-World War II and of course they didn’t like that. And then with President Johnson’s Great Society agenda in the 1960s, with the rise of Senator Barry Goldwater and his 1964 rise to the Republican Party nomination for president. And then with Congressional Republicans picking up a bunch seats in the 1966 mid-term elections. With help from Dick Nixon and of course with Dick Nixon’s Silent Majority presidential campaign in 1968. When Dick Nixon became President in 1969, Classical Conservatives, the JBS and others, weren’t very happy with President Nixon and his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agency’s.

The conservative movement of course is much broader than this. And there Neoconservatives as well as Religious Conservatives in it. And Classical Conservatives seem moderate to Religious and Neoconservatives, with both Political Factions. Having at least some influence on the Tea Party movement, especially Religious Conservatives, much less so with Neoconservatives. What really drives Classical Conservatives, is the limited government Movement. Restricting what the Federal Government as well as state and local government’s. In what they can do and to try to cut back the size and budgets of the Federal Governments And get behind political candidates and public officials who’ll support this agenda.

Which is also what Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party movement are about as well. The John Birch Society and other Classical Conservatives have influenced the Tea Party movement in a positive way. Trying to move the Republican Party past-George W Bush’s neoconservatism. And try to get the Republican Party past this and back to being about limited government. And if they don’t believe the Republican Party is about limited government, then they’ll find a party or create their own. That will do this for them.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

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

If there was ever a perfect time for someone to run for President of the United States and I guess I would add Ronald Reagan in 1980 to that list, but the person I'm thinking of would be Richard Nixon in 1968. One of the most divisive years at least in the 20th Century. America seemed to be going through both politically as well as a Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. The Democratic Party had all of the power in the Federal Government for eight of the first nine years. And there was this feeling that America was sort of coming apart.

Whether that was true or not and Richard Nixon, who had been running for president at least since 1965 after sitting out in 1964, sensed this being the great politician that he was. President Lyndon Johnson was very unpopular especially with the Vietnam War. The Hippie Revolution was going on and there was this feeling with Conservatives and perhaps Independents as well, that liberalism at least social liberalism had gone too far. I disagree with that as a Liberal, but that was the feeling from Conservatives. With the civil rights laws, anti-war movement and the Hippie Revolution of that decade as well. And there was this feeling that America needed a change a new direction and Dick Nixon picked up on this.

Dick Nixon had already paid his dues with the Republican Party so to speak. He was already a known name in the party. Serving in Congress from 1947-53, Vice President from 1953-61. And losing one of the closest presidential elections in American history to Jack Kennedy in 1960. Nixon was smart enough not to run for president in 1964 where Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson. But Senator Goldwater did manage to win some conservative Southern states in that election. That the Democratic Party used to own which also helped set up Dick Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign.

And Nixon also campaigned for Congressional Republicans in the 1966 mid-term elections. Where the Republican Party picked up around forty seats in the House and four in the Senate. The Democratic Party still had large majority's in the House and Senate. But these gains also helped set up the 1968 campaign for the Republican Party. Which made Nixon look like the clear frontrunner in the Republican Party in 1968. Because a lot of Republican politicians owed Nixon favors. Dick Nixon saw that America was divided and that he would be candidate to try to unite the country. Or at least unite part of the country behind him and the Republican Party. The people who he called the "Silent Majority", the people who weren't part of the Hippie Revolution or the anti-war movement. And 1964 and 68 was the start of the Republican Party taking over the South and winning more offices. Where over forty years later they basically own that region politically.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- The Welfare Establishment

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- The Welfare Establishment

The term “Welfare Establishment”, I find interesting, because it suggests that there’s a group of people, who get together to design social insurance programs for people, who for whatever reasons can’t support themselves. Or these programs go to help these people support themselves. That these people get together to plan how they are going to take care of low-income low-skilled people. With other people’s money. Which is my main problem with the welfare state. I don’t support the idea of a welfare state, because a Welfare State is basically for anyone who pays into them. And it makes people dependent on them, because they expect to get them. And less independent than they can be, because they know they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them.

And people on Welfare, feel that they don’t need to work as hard. Or be as productive as they can be, because again they have these Welfare programs coming their way to take care of them. I believe in a safety net which is different. A safety net, is for people who need them. Who don’t have a large enough pension fund to take care of them. Can’t afford enough health insurance once they retire, can’t afford enough health insurance while they are working. Lose their job and can’t find new work right away. Can’t afford a home on their own, can’t afford private education, etc. Basically a safety net, is for the people who lack the skills to take care of themselves. For whatever reasons, but then its up to the safety net especially since its funded by taxpayers, to help these people who are physically and mentally capable, to get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves.

If we had a public assistance system that was about self-empowerment instead of dependence, guess what, fewer people would need public assistance. Because more people would have the skills to take care of themselves. Which would make these social insurance programs more cost-effective and efficient. Because fewer people would need them, because they would be supporting themselves and be self-sufficient. Its basic economics and more people would instead be paying into public assistance, instead of collecting from it. Which is why people who can fund their own retirements, unemployment, health Insurance etc, should be doing exactly that. Instead of collecting from Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Medicare.

Again Welfare State for everyone, whether you need it or not and now we are wondering why we are going to have trouble funding it. Safety Net, for the people who need it that empowers those people to be able to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient so we have fewer people dependent on public assistance. Two different concepts when it comes to social insurance. Social insurance, should be exactly that. A social insurance system, that people can collect from when they need it. That buys them time and allows for them to pay their short-term bills. While they are putting themselves back on their feet, or on their feet for the first time in their lives. Because they grew up on Welfare and perhaps never saw their parents work at all. And made similar mistakes as their parents. Like dropping out of high school and having kids before they were ready to take care of them.