Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Washington Times: Editorial: “An Addiction Democrats Can’t Kick”: What a Real War on Drugs Looks Like

Washington Times: Editorial: “An Addiction Democrats Can’t Kick”: What a Real War on Drugs Looks Like

If we wanted to have a real War on Drugs in America, then we would have ten-million or so perhaps even more than that, people in prison because of the War on Drugs. If the War on Drugs were really a public health issue, we would have ten-million people in prison or so. Instead of the hundreds of thousands of people or so that are in prison today because of the War on Drugs. Because we would outlaw a hell of a lot more drugs that we do today. Alcohol and tobacco, certainly would be illegal, because of all the physical damage that consumption of those drugs have done to society. And even if the Mike Bloomberg Progressive nanny statists had their way, sugar and salt would also be illegal. Corrections and law enforcement, would become the two dominant professions and industries in America. Along with the military industrial complex closing the borders to keep all of these newly illegal drugs from coming into America.

I’m not in favor of the War on Drugs. Actually a strong opponent against it and I’m not a prohibitionist from a progressive or neoconservative perspective. I’m not even in favor of locking people up for simple possession of marijuana, which should be legalized anyway. Or even locking people up for simple possession of heroin, cocaine or meth. But if we had a real War on Drugs, we would also outlaw tobacco, alcohol, junk food and soft-drinks as a country. That do just as much damage as marijuana if not more when they aren’t regulated, or over consumed. There are several ways to cut our healthcare costs, but they all get to personal responsibility. I know that’s a Conservative term that Progressives hate and I’m not even a Conservative.

But I’m also not a Progressive, but someone who believes this is the way forward and something that todays so-called Conservatives use to be in favor of. But we cut our healthcare costs by universal access to either health insurance or a health savings account. With the mandate and tax credit under the Affordable Care Act. Most of the country, will have that now, but we should go further. And also apply personal responsibility to what’s called preventive care. That if you choose to live unhealthy, you not only pay for those purchases upfront. But you also pay for the healthcare that you are going to consume in the future for living unhealthy. That would go to the hospitals especially emergency rooms and tax payers.

Taxpayers, get stuck with the health care costs of people who are junk food and soft drinks addicts. Because many times these patients tend not to be insured. And we get stuck paying for the uncompensated healthcare that they receive. Todays so-called Conservatives, use to be in favor of personal responsibility, even as it related to healthcare reform twenty years ago. Until Democrats became in favor of it back then and today and decided to use this issue against Democrats to make them look like tax and spenders. But it was a good idea back then and is a good idea today as well.


Washington Examiner: Editorial: Cal Thomas: Back to the '50s: How Individual Freedom has Progressed in America Since

Cal Thomas: Back to the '50s | WashingtonExaminer.com

There is a movement in America that is religiously based at least to a certain degree. That believes America has gone downhill starting in the 1960s culturally and politically that because of the so called. Cultural-revolution that I wasn't around to experience but sometimes I wish I were. That America has too much freedom and we are less Collectivist as a country culturally with Americans by in large. Believing that we should be allowed to live our own lives and are against criminalizing things like pre-marital sex or certainly wouldn't like to. See it along with adultery, divorce, pornography, homosexuality and so fourth become illegal. That these are decisions for the individual to make with their own lives rather then government trying to do that. For ourselves and thanks to the 1960s Individualism became real in America. African-Americans and women now had the same protections under law as Caucasian-Americans and men in general. Homosexuals felt free to be themselves, immigration became more accepted and so fourth. And we started to become more a Liberal-Democracy.

The entire 1950s as a decade was not all bad and the entire decade of the 1960s certainly wan't perfect. But freedom became more available to more people in the 1960s then we've ever seen as a country. And the job of women were no longer seen as just raising their kids and then job of men were no longer just. Seen as going to work to support their wives and kids but to play more of a personal role in raising their kids as well. What religious and Neoconservatives like about the 1950s and keep pointing back to that decade. Was that it was Collectivist and Individualism wasn't much of a factor because when people did things that seem. Like they weren't mainstream they got looked down on as being Un American or immoral similar to how Neoconservatives look at Americans. Who do not share their 1950s golly gee swell view of what America should be today. And point back to a decade when the country wasn't as free for everybody or for people to be themselves.

We had our share of problems as a country in the 1960s with more kids being born never knowing who their fathers were. Or not having much of a relationship with them and spikes in poverty, the Vietnam War to use as examples. But it was a decade where freedom became available to more Americans and where more Americans felt free to live their own lives. Rather then feeling forced to live how their parents and grandparents grew up.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Tru-TV: Lizard Lick Towing- No One Calls Amy A Bitch


Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Post Plus

I don’t watch this show from very often. But it is pretty funny and sort of represents every single stereotype that Yankees and people who live in big cities and urban areas in general have of country folk lets say, Rednecks even. The people who work at Lizard Lick Towing in North Carolina are fairly intelligent, at least the owners Ron and Amy Shirley. But a lot of the people they deal with who just got their vehicles and other property towed because they didn’t pay their bills on them look like, frankly stereotypical country bumpkin dipshit hicks. Who believe they live under different rules as everyone else and don’t have to do such inconvenient things like paying their bills on their cars and trucks. And that is what you see in this scene.



Jack Hunter: Conservatism's Future: Young Americans For Liberty


This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress

The Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and even late 1960s launched Ron Reagan into office as President of the United States in 1980. But actually Congressional Republicans didn’t get the majority back in the House, or Senate in the mid and late 1960s, but made them a strong minority in both chambers. As well as Richard Nixon elected and reelected President of the United States in 1968 and 72. Placed Ron Reagan in strong place to be the GOP frontrunner for President.

After losing in 1976, Ron Reagan became the Republican frontrunner in 1980. The way Gerry Ford governed as President of the United States in the mid 1970s, fiscally conservative, as well as respecting personal freedom and civil liberties, all of these things started with Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964. And took sixteen years for it all to come together with a Republican president in 1980, a Republican Senate for the first time, since 1952 and a large Republican minority in the House of Representatives in 1980 as well. Where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Michael, could work in coalition with right-wing Southern Democrats in the House. To pass and block legislation.

What happened with the Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and what it finally led up to and what’s going on with the Ron Paul libertarian movement of today in the Republican Party, both have one thing in common. That neither one was big enough to be a governing coalition in the United States. Or even a leading coalition in the Republican Party. Where they hold a lot of leadership positions. Back in the mid 1960s, America was still in the LBJ Great Society Progressive Era.

Where Americans by in large wanted and liked big government taking care of them. And we are obviously pass that now. But Ron Paul’s problem in the Republican Party are the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right are still in charge of the Republican Party. But what they also have in common with the Goldwater Conservatives of the 1960s, is the old-guard is dying off and losing influence. While the Goldwater Conservatives were growing back then. And the Libertarian Republicans are growing today, as the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives are dying off and losing influence.

As then U.S. Senator Jim DeMint said back in 2012 before he became President of the Neoconservative Heritage Foundation political action group, “the Republican Party needs to become more Libertarian for them to be successful in the future.” But they do not have to embrace all of their positions, but they have to move in that direction on social issues. And get back to being a real fiscally conservative party. And stop nominating presidential candidates who run as fiscal Conservatives, but have records that suggest otherwise. Who run as Religious-Conservatives, but have records that also suggest otherwise. And get back to being a real Conservative-Libertarian Federalist party again. That can compete and be successful all over America.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Tenn Fan 76: Video: The Steel Curtain Steelers: The Steelers Become Champions Again


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress 

What made the Pittsburgh Steelers of the late 1970s even better than the Steelers of the mid 1970s, was the rule changes on offense in the NFL in 1978. That improved the blocking and opened up the running and passing games on offense. And opened up the passing game also with the illegal contact rule that allowed for WR’s to be able to get off of the line of scrimmage and run their patterns. 

Before the rule changes the Steelers were a power run ball control offense. That would rely on their Steel Curtain defense to set up great field position for them and get them takeaways. And when defenses tried to take their running game away by stacking the line of scrimmage, the Steelers also had deep threats in the passing game with WR’s John Stallworth and Lynn Swann and QB Terry Bradshaw. 
Bradshaw being one of the best deep passing QB’s of all-time, but with the rule changes on offense the Steelers had to find more ways to score and to be able to score more points. As we saw in Super Bowl 13 against the Dallas Cowboys and Super 14 against the Los Angeles Rams. The 1978 rule changes on offense in the NFL opened up the Steelers offense and made them a vertical passing and power running team, to go with their great defense.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-1/13-Cleveland Force @ Pittsburgh Spirit: Highlights


Source: Joey Teefizz-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Post Plus

The Force-Spirit rivalry was one of the better rivalries in the MISL. And had the MISL knew anything about marketing then and now, they would’ve done a good job at marketing this rivalry especially in North Ohio and Western Pennsylvania, the areas that the Force and Spirit represented respectfully. Indoor soccer is a perfect sport for America and American sports fans, because it is so fast paced and up in down. With the rules not really benefiting either the offense or defense. Which is how classic American sports fans like it. There is a lot more scoring in arena soccer or futsal than in soccer itself. But that is because the playing fields are smaller and the rules don’t favor either side. Unlike in soccer where the rules are designed to keep scoring down and as a result it is a more defensive game. But for whatever reasons arena soccer has never really caught on in America. Even though it is an American sport designed for American sports fans.
Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-1/13-Cleveland Force @ Pittsburgh Spirit: Highlights

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Intelligence Squared Debates: Video: The GOP Must Seize The Center-Right or Die: How The Republican Party Becomes a Governing Party

http://youtu.be/bayJo5mMecs

I saw a clip from this debate last night to early this morning depending on your perspective. And former U.S. Representative Mickey Edwards had the best line I've heard so far. That when he was is in the House in the late 1970s to the early 1990s, he had one of the most Conservative voting records in. Congress he was a Republican-Representative from Oklahoma, this is not some Blue-State Republican that has to look. Liberal in order to get elected this is someone who represented Red-State America in the U.S. House for sixteen years. His next point was that if he were in Congress today he would have one of the most Liberal voting records not in Congress but in the Republican Conference. And thats my whole point is Rep. Edwards is no Liberal or Centrist but a real Conservative and someone from the. Goldwater-Reagan faction of the Republican Party which is where they need to be now and where they need to get back to in the future to not. Just become a governing-party again but to remain a competitive party in Congress House or Senate.

Forget about the White House for a second which of course is very important. But the Republican Party is having a hard time just winning U.S. Senate elections right now even in Red-States that they should. Win like North Dakota where the Senate-Democrats held that Senate seat in the 2012 Congressional elections. Missouri would be another seat they should've won in 2012 but where Democratic Senator was reelected. Who happens to be one of the most unpopular Senators in Congress right now at least in 2012. Claire McCasskil was headed towards defeat before Todd Akin made himself a national figure last fall. Louisiana with Senator Mary Landreu who was also a very vulnerable Democratic Senator going in gets reelected easily in a state. Where Mitt Romney won by ten points, you would think that if Republicans could find a sane, intelligent, alive, American whose also a Republican to run against Senator Landreu. And the other Democrats I mentioned, Senate Republicans win those seats going away.

As I've blogged before the problem with the Republican Party is not that its too Conservative or even Conservative. But that they aren't Conservative enough and have moved to the Far-Right in America and and have become a Theocratic-Neoconservative party. Thats no longer that Conservative-Libertarian party where they use to be and could win all over the country. Including in California and New York and their big problem is that they no longer represent the center-right in America. Which is where they need to get back to be a governing as well as competitive party in America.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Jimm Magnet: NFL Films: NFL 1973-Super Bowl 8-Minnesota Vikings vs. Miami Dolphins: Highlights


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

Had the Vikings offense just been able to move the ball at all in these Super Bowls, these games would’ve been different because the Vikings defense played well enough for them to win these games. For the most part but their offense didn’t give much if any help. The 1970s Vikings get stereotyped a defensive first, conservative offense second team. But they were pretty good in the offense as well, with a great quarterback in Fran Tarkenton, great running back in Chuck Formean, Pro Bowl receivers in Sammy White and John Gilliam, later Ahmad Rashad. They had very good talent on both sides of the ball, but in their Super Bowls they were simply overmatched upfront. And never established a running game in each of these Super Bowls. And had trouble stopping the run as well.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Commentary: Seth Mandel: The Right Way to Reduce Inequality: How to Empower Those at The Bottom to Reach The Top

The Right Way to Reduce Inequality: pThe most recent Gallup poll, which shows a majority of Americans believe that some of their neighbors have too much money and that the government should therefore confiscate and redistribute some of it, is likely to please the president, who based his reelection campaign on class resentment. Though Gallup paints this as vindication for the [...]/p

FRSFreeStatePlus-
I guess there are a few different competing lets say ideological factions of people who do care about poverty in America and want to reduce it. That have their own policies on exactly how to do that. Conservatives tend to say that what we need to do is to reduce both taxes and regulations on the top and on employers. And then those employers would spend that money and invest it more in the country that would create more jobs in the country. As well as private school choice so kids in low income areas stuck in bad schools would have a good shot at getting a good education. Progressives or Socialists tend to believe that what we really need is an excise tax on the wealthy so we can spread out more money. Thats in the economy especially toward people at the bottom as well as invest more in public schools and infrastructure and job training. As a Liberal I like the job training idea.

And then Liberals such as myself going all the way back to the Clinton Administration and even further back in the Democratic Leadership Council in the 1980s. That the way to move people out of the bottom is through education reform, so students at the bottom could go to better public schools. And then have job training available for adults who are unemployed so they can have the skills to get a good job but. Also have job training available for low income workers so they can get themselves a better job and no longer have to work in poverty. Thats where I come down as a Liberal that if you want to have more haves and fewer have nots, then you should increase the economic pie. Instead of spreading out the current economic pie so more people can take advantage of it. That we need to encourage economic and job-growth, success, production and wealth and you do not do that punishing those things. But by encouraging people to do those things and allow for people who currently do not have to build their. Own wealth in America and be able to take advantage of it.

I do not call it income-inequality, I believe its an false term to put it lightly. Because the amount of money in society that people are able to make tends to come from the level of education that they have. And how productive that they are and the people with highest levels of education who create the most wealth. Tend to do better then the people who are not as successful but we do have an education and income-gap. With a lot of people doing very well but a lot more people who aren't doing very well. And to close these things we simply have to have a better educated workforce moving forward.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Forbes: Video: Opinion: Fred Allen: Gun Control: A Congress of Cowards

http://youtu.be/Dn44ncCQs6M

I do not know if I buy the 80-90% figure nationally that Americans support gun control. But if I had to a guess I bet there's a solid majority of Americans who want commonsense gun control. Thats designed to keep guns out of irresponsible people who shouldn't have or manage guns in the first place. That type of gun control should be able to pass in Congress both the Senate and the House if this was about. Commonsense, we are not trying to ban guns all together and from keeping guns out of private hands. But we are saying is that mentally ill people and criminals should not have access to guns in America. Legally or illegally so we are going to require anyone who purchases a firearm in America to go through a basic. Background check to make sure they aren't criminals or people with mental health issues. Who are not responsible enough to be possessing firearms because of the likely hood that they would use them to hurt. People and that we are also going to crackdown on the black market sales and manufacturing of firearms in America as well. So criminals and mentally ill people do not have another avenue to turn to.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

AEI: Politics: Michael Barone: "Not Such a Hot Idea": Liberal and Conservative Parties: Why Voters Should Have Choice in Who to Vote For

Not such a hot idea: Liberal and conservative parties - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

Its not that Liberal and Conservative that is the problem in the Democratic Party and Republican Party in America. Its the people further out of those two ideological factions that despite their small numbers in the borader American-electorate. That are the problems in American-politics because the leaders in the Democratic or Republican parties tend to be Liberal or Conservative them self. But aren't strong enough to take on their Far-Left or Far-Right flanks in their parties and even though if you put the Far-Left and. Far-Right together, you would still have a small political faction in America. But they are large enough in the Democratic Party and Republican Party that without the support of these factions. They could cause Democrats and Republicans and enough votes to win an election or force them to spend money. Early on in a primary money that they would need to defeat the Democrat or Republican that they would face in the general-election. Its not Liberal or Conservative thats the problem with our political system but our two party system that is the problem with our political system.

We basically have a two party political system with this idea that America is just made up of Liberals and Conservatives. Which is simply not the case, we have a wide range of Leftists and Rightists on both sides of the political-spectrum. With Liberals and Conservatives for the most part representing the Center-Left and Center-Right in America. And if thats all the Democratic Party and Republican Party were made up of. We would see either Liberal governments or Conservative governments or divided governments. But whatever of those three types of governments that we would have. The Federal Government would work and be able to govern because either Liberal-Democrats would be making the. Decisions or Conservative-Republicans would be making the decisions or they would be working together to make the decisions. Because now they would know that when they govern either by themselves or in a Bipartisan fashion. Now they know they do not have the Far-Left or Far-Right to deal with in the next election, someone who could challenge them in a primary.

If we had a political-system that wasn't two-party but we had 4-5 parties that all had ballot-access. That just didn't include Liberal-Democrats or Conservative-Republicans. But Socialists and other New-Leftists on the Left as well and Libertarians, Neoconservatives and Theocrats on the Right. The support for the Democratic Party and Republican Party would go up because thats where the country tends to be. Between Liberal and Conservative and not on the fringes on the Left and Right and the country would be a lot easier to govern. Because there would be more trust in Democrats and Republicans and more of a willingness to give them power.

Friday, April 12, 2013

The American Conservative: Edmond Burke Not William Buckley: Conservatism vs Traditionalism

Burke Not Buckley | The American Conservative

Where are the Bill Buckley's in the Republican Party and on the Right when they need them. This article in the American Conservative that I read today is an example of why I see Liberalism, Conservatism. And classical-Libertarianism as similar but different at the same time. Liberalism and Conservatism are not antistate but anti big-state that is government thinking it knows better how for the people to live their. Lives better then the people themselves which is what we are seeing now from Liberals and Conservatives as it relates to. The War on Drugs, War on Terror, the Gay-marriage debate, Prohibition of junk-food and soft-drinks and so fourth. And that Libertarians are of course anti big-state but today they sound more and more antistate all together and even seem to have problem with. Public police departments and so fourth, something that Liberals and Conservatives would probably never support. And to really know what Conservatism is about, you need to look at Bill Buckley who was a Conservative-Libertarian. To his core and continued to speak out against big-government across the board.

What we have now on the Right and in the Republican Party on marijuana and Gay-marriage are perfect examples of this. Is Conservatives who believe that these issues should be left to the states and Neoconservatives or lets say Traditionalists who are stuck trying to protect the status-quo. Because they see Conservatism as protecting things as they are when the Buckley-Conservatives see Conservatism as. Protecting individual-freedom and individuals from big-government. Which is why we are now hearing people who call themselves Conservatives sounding like supporters of big government when it comes to. Gay-marriage, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and Liberals on the other side sounding like the defenders of freedom and choice. If the GOP had more Bill Buckley's and George Will's in the party today, then this would really be a party thats. Against big-government and the defenders of liberty as they claim to be.

Todays GOP is basically made up of three factions. The Bill Buckley Conservatives who are in favor of individual-freedom and choice but as it relates to both economic and personal-freedom. That big-government is too much government, as well as being believers in a strong defense and an. Internationalist foreign-policy and anti big-government spending and so fourth. And lets say the religious or Traditionalist wing of the GOP people who I call Neoconservatives who believe in defending the. Status quo that that personal-freedom is dangerous and that government needs to protect people even. From themselves at times and the Ron Paul Anarcho-Libertarians who tend to be antigovernment all together. And it will be interesting to see which of these factions in the GOP wins out.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Washington Examiner Editorial: Competitive Federalism Can Restore Government's Credibility: How to Make Government Work Better By Not Slashing It

Examiner Editorial: 'Competitive federalism' can restore government's credibility | WashingtonExaminer.com

This is the well second editorial from the Washington Examiner that I like. A right-wing newspaper in Washington that combines Conservative-Libertarian thinking with Neoconservative thinking. Sort of the Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party to go along with the Rick Santorum wing of the GOP. The first editorial I liked was back in December from Tim Carney a Libertarian writing about Jim DeMint's move. To run the Neoconservative Heritage Foundation so I guess there are two ways to look at that. One from a positive standpoint that the Examiner is getting smarter and understanding where the GOP should. Move to or the cynical way of looking at it is that maybe I should reexamine my own Liberal thinking because. I just agreed with the right-wing Washington Examiner on anything. Sorta like a Conservative might feel if they just agree with a Liberal editorial that was just came from the Washington Post. I'm going to go positive here because its about Federalism something I believe in. That would be the best way to reform the Federal Government.

I'm a Liberal-Democrat who believes we can't cut our way to prosperity that with a budget-deficit of 845B$ and a national-debt of 17T$. Which are huge numbers that in a weak economy we simply can't erase those things by cutting and that erasing them by themselves won't solve our economic problems. For whatever credit you want to give President Clinton and Congressional Democrats and Republicans for. Deficit-reduction and balancing the Federal-budget in the late 1990s. Those things never happen with the strong economy that came as well because the revenue would've never of been there to balance. The Federal-budget, so first we need to be doing things that get the economy going and get back to 4-5% GDP growth. And two hundred thousand plus jobs being created every month. And as you are doing things that can lead to that, then you can also look at how you can reduce the debt and deficit. By cutting, eliminating and reforming.

So if you are going to cut and I believe we have to do that. You cut and eliminate things that you do not need in the Federal-budget that are basically waste and you reform things that you need government to. Do but that are costly and you need them to work better. If you believe in Federalism and I believe in a Liberal form of it and you are looking at lets say the social-welfare side of the budget. You could ask the questions, do we need a Federal food assistance program for the poor. Or would be better run at the state and local levels. Do we need a Federal public housing program for the poor or would this be better run at the state and local level. Do we need a Federal health insurance program for the poor and the elderly or could these programs be better run at the state and local level. Do we need a Federal Unemployment Insurance and retirement insurance programs at the Federal level or could these programs be better run. At the state and local levels and you could go on from there.

If you are interested cutting your way to prosperity even though that will never happen. Then you are with the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party but if you are actually interested in solving our. Fiscal problems then you should look at the cut and reform approach thats a Federalist approach that says. The Federal Government should only be doing what we need the Federal Government to do and not what. We want it to do and that a lot of these things as they relate to social-welfare could be handled and handled better at the state and local levels. And we could save a lot of money simply by turning the responsibility over to the states and locals to run these programs. While the Feds serve as a regulator to see what works and what doesn't work around the country.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

National Review: Video: U.S. Senator Rand Paul at Howard University: How The GOP Could Appeal to African-Americans


This is a very smart play on Senator Rand Paul's part and probably something that will offend Neoconservatives who in the GOP. Who believe that Republicans shouldn't be interested to appealing to new voters but that their message should be able to appeal to anyone. And if some people do not like it, so be it we do not need them. Which is how Republicans lost in 2012 because the base that they have right now is simply not big enough and is getting smaller. Because its getting older everyday and what Senator Paul is saying is that I'm not with the Confederate-wing of the Republican Party. And I'm against racism towards African-Americans or any other race in America. And its not the Conservative message in the GOP that needs to change but the message that some Republicans who call themselves. Conservative that need to change or have a smaller voice in the GOP so the GOP can bring in new voters. And not be so dependent on Neo-Confederates to win elections in the future.

What Senator Paul is saying is that the Conservative-Libertarian wing of the GOP that without. Congress never passes the civil-rights laws of the 1960s and that the African-slaves would've never been freed in the 1860s. That believes in economic-freedom and choice thats also combined with personal-freedom and the belief in the civil-liberties. Is still around and we are here to lead the Republican Party into the future and back into power and its not us thats giving the. GOP a bad name and why we are so unpopular with racial-minorities and women in this country. But what I call the Neo-Confederate wing of the GOP that is the problem and that if you believe in. Things like individual-freedom, civil-liberties, against the War on Drugs which was originally a Progressive idea because its about Prohibition. Then its the GOP you should be looking at give us a shot.

Rand Paul the first major Republican to give a speech at Howard University since who, Ronald Reagan or perhaps Dwight Eisenhower even. Tells you how far the GOP that use to be the "Party of Lincoln" who freed the African-slaves has fallen. And that he believes Republicans can win this community back in the future.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The Daily Telegraph: The Making of Margaret: Making Conservatism Mainstream in a Socialist State

The Iron Lady-
Margaret Thatcher, in some ways was very lucky because she arrived on the seen as first Leader of The Opposition in the United Kingdom in the mid 1970s. And then of course Prime Minister in 1979 at the perfect time when Britain was down and when socialism was not working and when the British were looking for a different message. Not so much different from what the United States was going through in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan came onto the scene.

Margaret Thatcher, didn’t set out to destroy Socialism, but empower Brits to have the freedom to take care of themselves and take on more responsibility in governing their own lives. And handing more power down from the central government in Britain to the British people themselves. Maggie Thatcher, coming to power in Britain was truly a Conservative Revolution from when the Socialists in the Labour Party had all the power in Britain. To a time where there was a new message in Britain. That was conservative and getting government out of the business of running people’s lives.

I believe Maggie Thatcher, would be called a Northeastern, or Bob Dole even Conservative Republican in America. Someone who was in favor of having a public safety net. But that it wasn’t the job of government to take care of physically and mentally able people for their entire lives. To help people who truly need it, but to help them help themselves. To put physically and mentally able people to work. Help people who are out of work get back to work, or go to work for the first time in their lives. As well as move Britain away from Marxist state economics and create a larger private sector in Britain.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Tania Ayde: A Look at Mobster Bugsy Siegel

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Post: Tania Ayde: A Look at Mobster Bugsy Siegel

Benjamin Bugsy Siegel was an interesting mobster. Italian, Irish or in Bugsy’s case Jewish, because he could’ve been anything he wanted to be. Because of his intelligence and charm. But because he lacked basic discipline and patience he went very far, but in a short time. But was only around for a short time. Being killed by the mob leadership in his early forties after being killed in his Los Angeles home. By perhaps both the Italian and Jewish mafia’s and their leaderships. If you’re familiar with the film Bugsy from 1991, where Warren Beatty plays Bugsy Siegel, according to the film Bugsy’s bosses fly him back to Los Angeles from some supposed meeting. But the only meeting that Bugsy went to was his assassination.

After the mob leadership decided that Bugsy was no longer worth the investment with all the money Bugsy spent to build the Las Vegas casinos and that even though Bugsy was very effective as a hitman for the Italian and Jewish mafias, as well as an enforcer, he was no longer worth the investment. Because of how bad a businessman he was. And that he needed to be taken out before he cost his bosses more money. Bugsy again many good personal qualities about him. (Even for a murderer) But he lacked disciplined and realism. He was too idealistic and too much of a dreamer, to survive as a mobster long-term. Whether you like it or not the Jewish and Italian Mafias’s, were business’s and didn’t want to associate with people who lost them money. Which is how they say Busgy in the end.

The mafia were worried that Bugsy would end up in prison or talking to police, or whatever. That he was too big of a gamble (even in Las Vegas) for them and needed to be dealt with. But without Bugsy Benjamin Siegel and Jimmy Hoffa, Las Vegas is not what it is today. A big vibrant city that it is in the Southwest and the entertainment capital of America. That is just a half-hour flight from Los Angeles. Where Americans all over the country go to everyday to have a good time. You take the criminal mindset away from Ben Siegel and you also discipline him without losing his imagination and vision, which is what created the Las Vegas that we know today and I think we’re talking about a brilliant businessman. But of course we’ll never know that.

Friday, April 5, 2013

John Mongani: Video: NFL Films: NFL 1980-AFC Divisional-Oakland Raiders @ Cleveland Browns: Last Drive


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

The Cleveland Browns of the late 1970s early 1980s were called the Cardiac Kids for a good reason. They trailed late in games a lot and many times by two scores and would have to either score once very quickly to win, or have to score twice with like five minutes left in the game. Their defense was not horrible and perhaps not even bad, but certainly not dominant which is what it became under Marty Shottenheimer in the mid and late 1980s. And as a result would get into shootouts and when they play good teams with good defenses, would fall behind late and have to make great comebacks to win. The 1980 Raiders were a very good if not great all around football team. That could score a lot of points and simply shut teams downs. As they did in the AFC Playoffs and in the Super Bowl that season. The Browns were simply beaten by a better all around football team.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Prison Movement: Mark Karlin: "The Vast Majority of People in US Prisons Shouldn’t Be There, Period": How to Stop the School to Prison Line

The Vast Majority of People in US Prisons Shouldn’t Be There, Period….. | Prisonmovement's Weblog

To say that the vast majority of people in American prisons do not belong there is a huge statement and a tall order to backup. For the life of me I don't know where someone would go to find credible info to back that up or would just happen to come across it. Unless perhaps they simply don't believe in prisons, perhaps they are some type of Anarchist or some Neo-Leftist that believes that incarceration is never the. Answer to anything that what we need is understanding and be able to understand why people commit bad crimes. And for the people who still do commit crimes, simple probation or something is the way to deal with violent offenders. I'm a Liberal and proud of that and Liberals are taught as we should be to question authority. Not be against authority but to question the legitimacy of people who want to direct us. Are they qualified and capable to do so and as a Liberal who believes in individual freedom as all real Liberals do. For government to be able to protect freedom, it has to have the authority to protect us not from ourselves but. From people who would harm the innocent intentionally or otherwise.

The term soft-power was coined about five years ago and it was applied to foreign policy. And it was going to essentially be the foreign policy of the Obama Administration. I prefer the term smart-power as a Liberal and would apply it not only to foreign policy but national security and law enforcement as. Well and what that means is, that its not our physical and military capabilities that makes us strong. Another words how we are able to defend ourselves or what we can do to others that makes us strong. Of course we need to be able to defend ourselves in a strong and responsible manner. But its the way we use our power to defend us from either potential foreign invaders, terrorists or just criminals who don't. Believe laws apply to them that determines how strong we are or not. Law enforcement and corrections is a perfect way to look at smart-power. And I do believe that the overwhelming majority of people in Americans prisons belong there. We simply have a lot of rapes, murders, gang related crimes in this country. Its the people who don't belong in prison that I'm concern with.

If you are going to look at prisons, you should at least figure why we have them and what they are there for. Or at least what do those things mean to you. For me they are there to keep actual criminals people who would do harm on society and have hurt innocent people. Away until they are able to function in society without hurting innocent people. Except for murders who should never be on the streets again for at least I believe for obvious reasons. And these criminals would be the murderers, rapists, batterers, terrorists, gang bangers and so fourth people who are real threats to the nation's security. The number one job of prisons is to protect society from criminals. Its the other inmates, the non violent offenders, drug offenders especially, but prostitues, gamblers scam artists to use as examples people who aren't. Looking to hurt people but people looking to make a fast buck or who are addicts who don't need to be in prison. Who we can no longer afford to house in prison either.

We have roughly two million people in prison in America. Roughly five hundred thousand of those inmates are in prison for drug related crimes and I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of those. Offenders are addicts and users and it costs roughly 50K$ a year to house each inmate. Maybe another two hundred thousand inmates are non violent offenders who aren't in prison for drug related crimes. We are talking about serious money especially in an economy with high debt and deficits and weak. Economic growth money that could be used for other things. Which is why we should move these inmates out of prison and into rehab and halfway houses at their expense working and paying rent and. So fourth and leave our prisons for the inmates that we need to be there.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Cleveland Brown: Video: NFL 1986, Cleveland Browns Highlights


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

The three best teams in the NFL in 1986 were the New York Giants, Washington Redskins and Cleveland Browns. The Giants clearly deserved to be number having won the Super Bowl that year and were the most consistent team in the NFL in 1986. The question is who would be number two? The Redskins or Browns and no Denver Broncos aren’t in the top three even though they won the AFC and played in the Super Bowl and beat both the Browns and Redskins that year. The Redskins and Browns simply had better teams, better personal and better records. The Broncos won enough to get to the Super Bowl. And a lot of that credit goes to their head coach Dan Reeves. But the Browns of this era were an NFC caliber and style team as far as physical strength toughness and speed on both sides of the ball. But simply didn’t win the games they needed to, to play in the Super Bowl. The two AFC Final’s they lost in 86 and 87. When they had the best team in both games.

CBS Sports: Video: NBA 1980-NBA Finals-Game 5-Philadelphia 76ers @ Los Angeles Lakers: The Doctor vs Kareem


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Post on WordPress

I think Rod Hundley has the most interesting comment in this video. When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with the ankle injury and he says he doesn’t believe that Lakers can beat the 76ers without Kareem. Well of course that is exactly what the Lakers did in game 6. They beat the 76ers without Kareem who was home with the ankle injury. 6’9 Magic Johnson, whose a point guard normally, filled in for Kareem at center. And the Lakers win that game to clinch the 1980 NBA Finals. Now no one including Hot Rod knew how great of a player that Magic was at this point. And I’m not sure Magic did either, in defense of Hot Rod.

As far as this game, the 76ers had no one who could defend Kareem. And most of the NBA didn’t either in 1980. And this Lakers team had so much talent around Kareem, including Magic, but Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and others, that if you paid a lot of attention to Kareem, Kareem would set up his other teammates the whole game and the other players would’ve beaten the 76ers. The Lakers didn’t have anyone who could stop Julius Erving, but they had two or three guys who could cover The Doctor in stretches and make him work for his points. Jamal Wilkes, Michael Cooper and Magic, at different points of the game.

This was a great finals for several reasons. The two best players in the game at that time, Kareem and The Doctor. The two best teams in the league, 76ers and Lakers. And they both matched up well with each other. They had to cover each other and could make the other team work on offense and defense. Without any real weakness’s on other team. Other than the 76ers not having true quality starting center who played both ends of the court real well. Caldwell Jones was primarily a shot blocker and rebounder. Darryl Dawkins was primarily a scorer, but who wasn’t very consistent there. And that was the difference with Kareem being able to dominate either of the 76ers centers.