Tuesday, December 27, 2011

DW-TV: Video: Claudia Kleinert- Gorgeous, Sexy Meteorologist

Source:The Daily Press

Love Claudia Kleinert period at least from what I've seen from her on YouTube. Great voice whether she's speaking German or English and great face as well. She actually makes the weather seem interesting to listen to. Which couldn't be a small task, because that would probably be like making listening to someone read from a phonebook interesting. But I believe similar to actress's Kim Novak and Angie Dickenson, just because of their delivery, they can make mediocre scripts sound great just because of how they deliver them. Simply because of their delivery.

But that is just how she sounds and does the weather. Throw in the skinny denim jeans in the black leather boots and she got this gorgeous sexy goddess with the body as well in that great outfit and it is just a lot of extra icing on a very large cake. A gorgeous sexy well-built women, which is very common in Germany and with German women around the world regardless of country. And she makes listening to the weather anything but like listening to a roll call in Congress, or someone reading from a phonebook

Monday, December 19, 2011

Invest Iiguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- How to Stay Free

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said, “because that’s where the money is.” Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property. To house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet Cabinet position or look to run for President themselves. Progressives, especially make the arguments that our Federal Government is small compared with Europe. As far as what their federal government’s spend on GDP compared with ours. And that they don’t have the same campaign, lobbying and corruptions issues that we do.

Well, today’s Progressives are correct in a sense, but most of those countries compared with the United States are fairly small. If Europe were to unify then they would match up pretty well with us in population and with their economy. Also Europe’s freedom of speech protections, are not as liberal as ours. And some of the things that American lobbyists do in Washington would be illegal there. European company’s and organizations that do business in America, lobby Washington like when it comes to mergers, trade, taxes and those sort of things. The Federal Government now spends 25% of U.S .GDP. Up from 18-19% in 2000. If we got back down to 18, 19 or even 20% of GDP, we could eliminate a lot of the corruption in Washington, because the Federal Government wouldn’t have as much power and control. And lobbyists would have to spread out and go to over places, if we simply decentralized the Federal Government. And passed more power down to the state and local government’s and even the private sector.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Philip Lowe: Video: Kevin Pollack as Captain Kirk

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStatesPlus on Blogger

Star Trek is clearly not the best show of all time (also this just in the world of the obvious if you take a shower you're likely to get wet) but Star Trek was definitely a very entertaining show. I would describe it as a sci-fi/comedy where you had basically a comedian for the captain in Bill Shatner. With a great cast to go around, including a first officer played by Len Nimoy who knew everything about everything except for what it was like to be a human. He seemed to lack certain feelings and emotions that the rest of us had making him somewhat distant (even for space Travel). Which is saying something since this show took place on a spaceship.

Well most likely the USS Enterprise was not a real spaceship up in space. No not a spaceship underwater in case you were wondering that. (Good guess Captain) You had the chief engineer played by a drunk Scotsman. (is there any other type of Scotsman) Who never met a problem he couldn't freak out about. With Scottie gee thats a surprise a Scotsman named Scottie, I wonder if there are any italians named Angelo or Spaniards named Jose. Maybe I'll google that and Captain Kirk telling Chief Scottie, dammit Scottie (or something to that effect) you must calm down man and handle the situation! Which was like Chief Scottie's magic potion or whatever. Because they of course operated in a perfect world up in space where the good guys and girls always won.

You had the chief medical officer called Bones played by Jimmy Carter, I mean Deforest Kelly (who reminds me of President Jimmy Carter) who was basically in charge, well the health care on the ship naturally. But in his spare time to make sure there was someone always there to freak out (when Scottie wasn't available) with his famous line, "dammit Jim I'm a doctor not God!" Star Trek was again a very entertaining show because again you had basically a comedian as the captain in Bill Shatner. Who I'm sure did a lot if improvising and improv on that show, hell I know I would've done the same thing.

Because the show wasn't built around great writing, of course you know its a spaceship where people can live on it year round so none of the plots were believable. (Unless you've been drinking and been high for two weeks straight and started seeing things like Klingons or Jerry Fallwell in a hip hop video as the performer. Or Pat Robertson coming out for same-sex-marriage or whatever the fantasy may be) But is was a show with an excellent cast that took place in of course in a galaxy unknown.

This was Star Trek, they had to make to funny because it wasn't believable. They would go to other planets millions of miles from Earth where the people looked human and of course spoke perfect English. )They could teach some of our immigrants how to speak English as well) This is how realistic this show was. And they did a great job with what they had and comedian Kevin Pollack does as good of a Captain Kirk as Bill Shatner one comedian making fun of another.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Glenn Beck: 'Progressive Three Tactics'

Source:Fox News- Glenn Beck talking about people he calls Progressives.

Source:The Daily Times

"This is an excerpt from Glenn Beck's FOX show that aired Wednesday night, October 21, 2009.  It has been edited to fit the YouTube time slot.  You can watch the full clip (and read the article/transcript) at Glenn Beck's website:Glenn Beck.  The video is also available at FOX News website:FOX News." 

Glen Beck is right that the Progressiïe Caucus in Congress and their allies in America want profits to at least be limited. Where some industry’s even get nationalized, or where there’s at least public options to them. Health care would get nationalized, Medicare would be the only health insurer in America and perhaps private hospitals would be nationalized as well. Or there would at least be a Federal health care system with Federal hospitals and clinics. Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, managed to get public funding for community health clinics in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Under a democratic socialist system in America, the banking system would either be nationalized, or for-profit banks would become illegal. And there would be Federal Banks. Private schools would probably get nationalized, or the entire education system in America would be nationalized. 

Whatever is left of the private sector if the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party ever came to power in America, would be highly taxed and regulated with strict limits on profits. There would be strict limits on how much individuals could make. And when they go over at, the Federal Government would collect that money in taxes.

And all of this money would go to fund a vast welfare or superstate looking something like they have in Sweden. Or it would trump that, paying for everything from health care, health insurance, Unemployment Insurance, retirement, education. All things provided for by the Federal Government, none of it free by the way. With tax rates ranging from 25-90% if not higher like back in the 1950s. 

Where Glen Beck goes off the deep end to the point where he’s drowning in his own hot water, (you can’t drown in hot air, but I wish politicians could.) is lumping Barack Obama and his Administration in with the Progressive Caucus/Party.

Beck is right about the basic goals of the Democratic Socialist movement. But wrong that the entire Democratic Party is in favor of it. It's only a faction maybe 20% of the party that believes in this agenda. Which is a good thing otherwise I wouldn’t be a Democrat. 

Glen Beck has a habit of making good points and speaking out of his ass in the same editorial. He’s like a doctor making a brilliant diagnosis about someone with a bad back who doesn’t feel any pain. Even though they were injured and this person has had a back for a long time. But then the doctor gives a speech about nuclear energy something he knows nothing about. He diagnosis’s the wrong problems and issues.

Glen Beck has a pretty good idea about democratic socialism in America. But knows very little about the Democratic Party, except the Socialists in it. That again only make up around 20% of a very large party. It's like someone who thinks they can be a great football coach, because they watch the games on TV. And have the opportunity to say that didn’t work, they should’ve done this instead. And then they get a chance to coach and have no idea what to call, or why their calls didn’t work. People should just speak to what they know about, which for Glen Beck is probably only a few subjects.

Glen Beck is no more an expert on the Democratic Party a party I’m a member of (and I’m a Liberal Democrat, by the way) than Sarah Palin is an expert on anything important. But let's use foreign policy for the sake of time: and he should just speak to the subjects that he understands like socialism and libertarianism. And let people who understand liberalism and the Democratic Party like myself analyze those things. And I won’t try to analyze nuclear physics or engineering subjects, because I know basically nothing about as well. 

The other thing that Glenn Beck gets wrong about Progressives: people he calls Progressives aren't Progressives. He's like a guy on the street who criticizes the bad driving of airline pilots, when he should be talking about the bad driving of cab drivers, or at the least the bad driving of a particular cab driver. The people he calls Progressives are Socialists. In some cases Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats. But would you want to be right-wing commentator or journalist with these folks in power?

Friday, December 2, 2011

Glenn Beck: 'History Lesson: Progressivism in America'

Source:Fox News- Glenn Beck talking about our Progressive president's.

Source:The Daily Times

"Glenn Beck History Lesson Part 1 of 5" 

From Glenn Beck 

I believe in Glen Beck Land or Glen Beck America, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, Progressive Era. And we essentially go back to being a libertarian nation (for rich, Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men) where we are all on our own and when we need assistance, we get it through private charity. 

What Beck is forgetting is back in those days, African-Americans were treated basically like Colonial Americans (or like the pets of Colonial Americans) before the United States was formed, even though they were American as anyone else in America (except for American-Indians) their constitutional rights were not enforced under law or enforced equally.

So progressivism has made at least some positive reform in America. And not I’m going to interpret whether Mr. Beck believes if its okay for African-Americans to be treated like second-class citizens or not. Let him do that for himself. We had of course had the Great Depression of the 1930s, which lasted at least through the 1930s. The New Deal did not pull us out of it, our involvement in World War II did that. But what the New Deal did and no one including myself would design the New Deal, the same way today as back then, was give the Great Depression a floor and allow of the economy to start recovering.

I would’ve not have given the Federal Government all of that power to run the safety net and instead empower the states and private sector with that responsibility. Same thing with the Great Society in the 1960s. But what the New Deal and Great Society did was at least give people in need some floor of income that they could rely on. When they are out of work and that sort of thing. But of course none of those programs would’ve been designed the same way today by anyone.

The Glen Beck World that he talked about before the Progressive Era had some advantages: as we were becoming the richest country in the world, thanks to American private enterprise and our natural resources, but it also had some holes in it as well with all the racial, ethnic and gender discrimination that was going on back in that era. That government let go on and did nothing about. Even though these people had the same constitutional rights in America as Caucasian men. But they were just not being enforced equally, which is how bigotry was able to take place.

Not laws against hate crimes, which is why government was needed to step in. And make this bigotry illegal and try to put a stop to it. And when people were unemployed, or didn’t have enough skills to get a good job and be self-sufficient, unless they were able to get help from private charity, they were out of luck. Which is why the New Deal was created and again I wouldn’t have designed the New Deal the same way.

No one would, but at least it was something that people in need could turn to. Things were definitely done differently pre-Progressive Era, but not exactly better in every sense, sometimes better. And in others like with equal protection, done worse. Sometimes moving forward and progressing as a society can be better, especially since we’ve never lived in a perfect world. Which is why we should always try to get better. 

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- The Welfare State

Source:The FreeState

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government. Because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival.

I’m not against Welfare Insurance or a safety net. I just don’t want it run by government, but have government regulate it instead. And instead have government do the things that they are traditionally efficient at. National security, foreign policy, law enforcement and regulation. Including regulating semi-private non-profit self-financed community services that are in the business to help people in need. Yes be able to sustain themselves in the short-term while they are working to get themselves on their feet. But empowering them to get themselves on their feet. With things, like education, job training and job placement. Instead of allowing them to stay on public assistance indefinitely where nothing is expected of them. Collecting public assistance checks financed by people who work for a living.

What I would like to do with our safety net instead is turn all of these programs over to the states in the short-term. Including things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance. For the States to set up their own safety nets and public assistance systems. That would be run by semi-private non-profit, self-financed community services. In the business to help people in need sustain themselves in the short-term, but empower them as well. To get themselves on their feet and become self-sufficient taxpayers with jobs and paying their own bills. Because they got assistance to get themselves educated and get job training. And help finding a good job that could support themselves and their families.

Also things like public housing, Food Assistance and other programs that are in the business to help these people get by. But also help them become self-sufficient so they can take care of themselves and no longer need these programs. And I would also include homeless assistance through housing centers that give people a place to stay in the short-term. But also help them get a job and their own place to stay. I’m all for helping people who are down get themselves up. I believe a 20% poverty rate is a disgrace in a developed liberal democracy the richest country in the world is a disgrace. The difference being that I actually want to help these people empower themselves so they no longer have to live in poverty. Not stay on public assistance indefinitely and then complain about how many people live in poverty in America. And what to do about it, we know what to do about it and how to help these people and we need to do these things. Instead of just complaining about our high levels of poverty.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Awsi Dopper: Vide: WPLG-TV: The 1972 Dolphins The Perfect Season

Source:The Daily Post

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Common Sense Capitalism: Milton Friedman: Limiting The Role of Government

If you look at the Federal Government in America and its size post-World War II, we’ve generally spent around 20% of our GDP on the public sector. Defense, law enforcement, foreign affairs, social welfare, etc. And then you add state and local governments, government total in America at all three levels have spent around 30-35 of our GDP on the public sector. And then you go to the Federal, or national Government’s in Europe, except for the United Kingdom, which basically has basically unitarian government without much if any provincial or local governments, they generally spend around 50-60% of their GDP on their public sectors. And that’s just as their national level. It’s even higher then that if you add provincial and local governments. Its higher than that in the Euro States like Germany, Holland, France, Spain. They spend around 50% or more of their GDP on their public sectors.

Scandinavia, spends closer to 60% of their GDP on their public sectors. Especially Sweden and Norway, who’ve traditionally at least since World War II have had socialist governments. Democratic Socialists in charge of their governments, so of course their welfare state’s are going to be a lot bigger. Especially compared with America, or even Canada. The culture in America is just a lot different in America than it is in Europe. The state motto in New Hampshire, “is give me liberty or give me death”. We have a strong liberal and libertarian tradition in our country. We tend to be big believers in limited government and individual liberty. And you keep government limited to protect individual liberty.

Europeans, tend to be collectivist that they are all in this together, we are only as strong as our weakest link. That you need to pay high tax rates to preserve “economic justice”. To make sure no one gets too strong, or too weak. That you need government to provide a lot of social services that you can’t trust the private sector to perform. Health care, health insurance, education, pension, Unemployment Insurance, etc. They like their governments and trust them to do the right things. Whereas Americans, just hope that government doesn’t screw things up. And we don’t tend to trust government and basically want to be left alone to live our own lives.

Americans, have also been lied to a lot by government. Things as serious as national security and war. We’ve had abuse of powers from our government. So we basically have this idea that we want to be left alone to live our lives. And leave government to enforce rule of law, protect the streets and country, keep our taxes down. And help us out when we are down with a hand up, not a hand out to help us get back on our feet. But not try to control how we live our lives. This is what liberal democracy is about. America is very individualist as a country, whereas Europe tend to be collectivist as a society.

What I would say to Socialist Americans that are trying to make America more like Europe, but never really have had the power to do so, because they keep getting out voted by Liberals, Libertarians and classical Conservatives, that one of the reasons why we are an immigrant nation and have always been, which is one of the reasons why we are a country of 310M plus people in the world with the largest economy in the world, is that people come to America to get what they don’t have at home. Individual liberty and economic opportunity. And want that same opportunity to live their own lives as Americans have.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Talking Points Memo: Video: "Senator Barack Obama Confesses to Socialists Leanings": Who Isn't a Socialist in America?

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on Blogger

I’ll admit as a Liberal Democrat I’m not completely satisfied with the politics of President Obama. I didn’t like his politics as primary candidate Obama in 2008. I thought he was running to the Far-Left as a McGovernite New-Left government can do everything for everybody Social Democrat. I like him more as Democratic nominee Obama in the general election. When he ran as a New Democrat Liberal to get independent voters to vote for him. As President Obama he’s been a bit too weak and timid for me. But the results so far have been pretty good, 
Especially comparing where the country was three years ago and where we are today as President. But three years ago the economy was collapsing, so it is not hard to much  better than that. It would be like saying you inherit a winless football team and then you win four games the next season and you say, "see, I told you things would get better". President Obama has governed as a moderate Progressive. Somewhere between Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. Not as a Liberal Democrat in the JFK sense, which is what I was hoping for.

The first Liberal Democratic President since Bill Clinton or even Jack Kennedy. But JFK at least as far as I'm concern is the God of modern liberalism in it's realest form. So saying you are not as good as a Liberal as Jack Kennedy, would be like saying you are not as good as a quarterback as Joe Montana. Anything close to that, is more than acceptable.  I’ve been with the President for the most part on economic and foreign policy. But I’ve been disappointed with him on national security, especially with the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention.

President Obama hasn't eliminated big government when it comes to civil liberties. He's grown it like plants use water to grow to the point that he makes Dick Cheney look like small government Libertarian when it comes to civil liberties. Dick Cheney is actually a secret admirer of Barack Obama in this area and writes him love letters about it. Which scares the hell out of Barack and Michelle, but not to the point he changes his policies about security, privacy and liberty. 
The Patriot Act and indefinite detention, two things that then Senator Obama  used to be against as well, but now as President he’s for them. "I'm against these policies when I'm running for office and need votes. But now I have to govern and look strong on national security, so I'm for them". President Obama on truth serum.  I disagree with President Obama on the War on Drugs. I think as a lawyer as skilled as the President is, that he would be against the War on Drugs. Especially with his liberal leanings, but the President has escalated the War on Drugs. Which tells me again that Barack thinking with his head, knows the War on Drugs is a failure. But Barack the politician believes he needs the votes of Independents who perhaps are more big government on this issues.

Anyone who understands socialism, understands that Barack Obama isn’t one of them. Which is why Today's so-called Progressives, who are really locked in the closet Socialists, don’t like him. And anyone who understands liberalism, probably generally likes Barack Obama, but are disappointed with him as well. To describe Barack Obama’s politics I believe is fairly simple. In his heart I believe he’s a Liberal Democrat who considers Jack Kennedy to be one of his heroes. But as President he’s a moderate Progressive who rather govern, then fight the good fights and not come up with nothing. Making him a pragmatist, which is what most successful Presidents are.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Marijuana Community: Gary Johnson on Legalizing Marijuana

Source:FreeState Now

Why do we have two-million people in prison in America, the largest Prison Population in the World. At least on a per-capita basis, because we lock up people and send them to prison who don't represent a threat to society. We lock up people for what they do to themselves. We lock up people for what they do to themselves rather than what they do to others. In other words the 'War on Drugs' in America is at fault for our huge prison population. We are a liberal democracy and I'm a Liberal Democrat whois  proud to live in this liberal democracy. But of course we are not a perfect liberal democracy.

And for one we lock up people for what they do to themselves as well as what they do to others. Of course we should lock up people when they harm innocent people. But not when they hurt themselves and this is something Gary Johnson who describes his politics as classical liberal who is running for President in the Republican Party, but you wouldn't know that. Because he's only been allowed to appear at one presidential debate. Understands he understands this because he was Governor of New Mexico which of course borders Mexico. They actually have about a thousand-mile border with Mexico and have their own drug issues as a result of Mexico.

But Johnson did as Governor of Mexico was very smart and clever and forward-thinking. He pardoned marijuana users who weren't violent offenders, who didn't have a bad record in prison. That alone brings down your prison population and allows you to use that prison space for violent offenders instead. And New Mexico has a organized gang problem and this helped them with that. This is what I would do. Pardon all non-violent marijuana users who are in United States prisons who have solid records in prison. Perhaps transfer them to halfway houses at their expense. To give them an opportunity to transition back to private life. Job Placement, that sort of thing.

Legalize marijuana at the Federal level and regulate it like alcohol and then tax it heavily to discourage it. And then let the states decide for themselves whether marijuana will be legal in their state or not. And then with the drug offenders the users not the dealers, especially the addicts, cocaine, heroin and meth, transfer them from prison to drug rehab at their expense. And once they complete that they would be moved to a halfway house, again at their expense to get help with transitioning back to private life. And going forward all drug addicts who are arrested for drug use, would go to drug rehab instead of prison or jail and this would be put on their medical record, not criminal record. And we could save so much money in this country with our criminal justice system and corrections system, law enforcement.

If we just grasped the fact that we live in a Federal Constitutional Republic in the form of a Liberal Democracy and with that comes basic fundamental constitutional rights, like the right for people to live their own lives without being harassed by government, as long of course we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing, then we would stop locking people up just for doing unhealthy activities like smoking marijuana. Imagine how overcrowded our corrections system would be if we locked people up for drinking alcohol. We made the right decision on alcohol eighty years ago, now we should do the same thing with marijuana as well.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Reagan Foundation: President Ronald Reagan's 1982 State of The Union Address

Source:The FreeState

If you listen to President Reagan’s 1982 State of the Union Speech and then listen to President Obama’s 2009, or 2010 State of the Union speeches, they are similar at least in this sense. “Times are tough as they were during all three speeches, we passed a program to deal with the bad economy. Which is true in both cases, things are improving a little bit and had we not passed our program, things would be worse had we not done anything.” Same thing was said in 1982 from President Reagan and President Obama said the same thing in 2010. Because the situation was similar, an awful recession and high unemployment in both cases.

The country probably wasn’t buying either speech that much, because President Reagan’s Republican Party dropped thirty plus seats in the House in 1982. And I don’t know how they managed hang on to the Senate. (Maybe that’s a future blog) And President Obama’s Democratic Party dropped sixty-two seats in the House in 2010. Both Presidents inherited awful economy’s big reason why they were elected President. The economy’s so bad that it wasn’t until late 1983, that the economy began to take off again. With high economic growth and a falling unemployment rate. A big reason why President Reagan was reelected in a landslide. And in President Obama’s case it may be four years before the economy takes off again, Economic growth picked up in the third quarter, but President Obama will probably have to get reelected in 2012 to see the economy take off under his watch. And be able to get credit for it which of course at this point is no guarantee.

I believe one of the reasons why Barack Obama respects, or admirers however you want to put it quotes from Ronald Reagan is because the situations that both faced when they became President. And their first terms were both pretty rough. Both had low approval ratings, both got whipped in their first mid-term and both were considered one-term President’s. But President Reagan of course was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Senate Republicans held the Senate and lets see what happens in 2012. But the best thing that President Obama has going for him and it has almost nothing to do with him except for how President Obama looks compared with his competition, or as I would call it lack of competition.

When a talk show host with no political experience as far as running for public office, up until now is considered the frontrunner and tied with the guy who should be the frontrunner and reminds me of George H.W. Bush in Mitt Romney. But we’ll see how it works out. 2012 may be one of those typical presidential elections where the President is defeated, because of a bad economy. Or untypical and gets reelected in a bad economy, like in 1936, or 1940 with FDR. History is critical and important obviously because it allows us to see where we have been. What was done in the past and when similar situations come up in the future like today. Compared with 1981-82, we can see what was done in the past and if that worked, or not. And if that should be done now to try to solve similar problems.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- Freedom vs. Fairness

Source:The FreeState

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness. When he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. And that gets to things like quality education and rule of law and what’s been called quality of opportunity. Not quality of result, but quality of opportunity is where everyone, or most people, no economic system is perfect, they all have their strengths and weakness’s, but where all the people have the power to make the best out of their lives. And have a quality of life based on what they put into their lives, what they produce for society.

Thats what you get in a liberal democracy which is individual liberty. Quality of result, is where we all put our money into one pot essentially and government passes some of that money, perhaps not much of it back to the people based on what they feel they need to support themselves. Which is what your would get in a socialist society, or a social democracy. With freedom, people can live their own lives and make the best out of them based on what they do with them. And you give them a quality education, then they’ll have a good opportunity to make a good life for themselves. And the fairness comes from making sure that everyone has an opportunity at a quality education. And with rule of law and that everyone is treated fairly under law.

Fairness, is not about some people doing great in society and then taking some, or a lot of their money, to give to the less-fortunate in life who aren’t self-sufficient and don’t have a great life. And perhaps have to collect public assistance for them just to survive. Fairness, would be empowering the less-fortunate so they can become self-sufficient. Empower them to go back to school, or go to school so they can get the skills and job training that they need. To get a good job, make a good living and become self-sufficient in life and not need public assistance in order to survive. Fairness, is not about taking money from people who went to school and made themselves productive in life and giving to people who can’t support themselves and collect public assistance.

But reforming our public assistance system that does this, that just doesn’t give people Welfare checks for an indefinite period of time and expects nothing from them, but uses those resources to empower people so they can support themselves. And again that gets to education. If you get a good education, your chances of doing well in life are so much better than people who don’t. Milton Friedman once said that if it’s a choice between freedom or fairness, he would choose freedom. Because without freedom there is no fairness, because then everyone would be the same. And not have the freedom to make the best life for themselves that they can. Because we would all be dependent on government.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

James Miller Center: President Ronald Reagan- Address on Tax and Budget Legislation August 16, 1982: A Reverse of Course?

In the late 1970s 1978 or 79, Republican Senator Bill Roth who was on the Senate Finance Committee and Republican Representative Jack Kemp, over in the House, together introduced the Kemp-Roth bill in the House and Senate. Which was deep tax cuts across the board. Supply side tax cuts, meaning there weren’t budget cuts to pay for them. Neither Member of Congress was the Chairman, or Ranking Member of their committees. They were also Conservative Republicans serving in a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President. So they both knew that their legislation wouldn’t pass at least in that Congress.

Kemp-Roth was about the 1980 general election. Hoping of course Ronald Reagan is elected President and that Republicans pick up a lot of seats in Congress and even take over the House, or Senate, or both. Congressional Republicans picked up a bunch of seats in the 1978 mid-term elections, especially in the House. But they had a long way to go going and Democrats kept control of Congress for 1979-81. But Kemp-Roth help set the stage for the 1980 general elections with high taxes becoming unpopular across the country. With a very weak economy with high unemployment, the recession of 1979-80 and everything else. And Ron Reagan knew this and made Kemp-Roth part of his 1980 presidential campaign.

Ron Reagan becomes President of the United States in a landslide in 1980, Senate Republicans take control of the Senate pick up thirty seats in the House. President Reagan is pretty popular from the beginning, the assassination attempt in 1981 actually helped in a sense. Because his approval rating went up. Senate Republicans had the votes in the Senate, the question was whether they can pass Kemp-Roth in the Democratic House. Which was controlled by Speaker Tip O’Neil who was a very Progressive Democrat to put it mildly. And didn’t believe in tax cuts.

But with President Reagan’s popularity, House Minority Leader Bob Michael along with President Reagan, were able to find enough Conservative Democrats in the South to go along with all the House Republicans and Speaker O’Neil made the mistake of allowing for a vote on Kemp-Roth. Because he believed he had the votes to defeat the bill along with I believe House Leader Jim Wright. The President’s approval rating was so high, those Southern Democrats all wanted to get reelected and Kemp-Roth passed in 1981. But the economy didn’t improve right away, actually there was another recession in 1982 that was even deeper.

But in 1982 with yet another deep recession and the debt and deficit skyrocketing and with the budget cuts that the President promised that never came around at least early in his presidency. President Reagan, House Speaker Tip O’Neil and Senate Leader Howard Baker and I believe Senate Minority Leader Bob Byrd worked together and agreed to raise taxes I believe across the board. And actually President Reagan also the President of Supply Side Economics, raised taxes ten times and increased the size of the Federal Government during his Presidency. And left office in 1989 with a record Federal debt and deficit. President Reagan became President as an ideologue, but left office as a pragmatist.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Carole Robinson: State of The Union (1948) Starring Spencer Tracy & Katharine Hepburn

Source:Carole Robinson- from 1948, with an all star, Hollywood, Hall of Fame cast.

Source:The Daily Times

"Entertainment Purposes Only. Frank Capra and Van Johnson - Need I say more? Oh, yes - Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Angela Landsbury...enjoy the scene with tow plane in midair playing bumper cars. Claudette Colbert was originally cast in the Hepburn role." 

The State of the Union from 1948 is a very entertaining and very funny movie with an excellent cast. Spencer Tracy as the presidential candidate, Katharine Hepburn as his wife, who’s somewhat reluctant to get into politics. But who’s more than capable of taking care of herself. Van Johnson as the political strategist, Angela Lansbury as Washington political insider. A leader in I’m guessing the Republican Party. And some other great people as well and the Spencer Tracy character a private businessman from New York.

The Tracy character who basically up till this point never considered running for any public office gets recruited by these party insiders. To be their presidential candidate, because he’s a very successful and wealthy outsider. Who does seem to have an interest in current affairs and has an independent streak, but never gets around to running for public office. The Tracy character reminds me a little of Ross Perot and Tom Dewey. But charming and likable and someone who these insiders believe can beat the incumbent President.

Harry Truman gets mentioned as the President in the move, that the Republicans want to beat. This movie came out in 1948 the year of that famous election between President Truman and Governor Tom Dewey of New York. And the Tracy character reminds me of Tom Dewey, even though Governor Dewey had some experience in public service at this point as a prosecutor as well as Governor of New York, but politically the Tracy character reminds me of Dewey: Progressive on social issues and foreign policy and a believer in fiscal responsibility as well.

Spencer Tracy plays the outsider of outsiders running for President of the United States. Not just because of the fact he lived outside of Washington, never served in public office or public service. Never even active in politics or current affairs, but also someone who was an outsider with his politics as well. He was farther to the left than Woodrow Wilson on foreign policy, calling for a world government. That would go past the United Nations. But someone who was also an anti-Communist and believed America should be tough with Russia.

In that sense this character reminds me a little of Tom Dewey. This character was a strong Progressive on economic policy. In favor of very high tax rates. Even as a very wealthy businessman, to be used to pay for social insurance programs and public services: like health care, health insurance, education and other things. But also a strong believer in fiscal responsibility as well. That tax revenue shouldn’t be wasted and spent very wisely as well. Again reminding me of Tom Dewey and Ross Perot. And a presidential candidate like this today I believe could be very successful in appealing to Independent voters as an Independent. Because of their broad reach.

State of the Union was a great political movie back in 1948. And is still a great movie today over sixty years later. Because it’s very relevant to the politics back then. Third-party candidates like Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party and Strom Thurmond of the Dixiecrat Party. Candidates who could actually have an affect on the presidential election. And that the Democratic Party and Republican Party actually had to take seriously. And try to appeal to some of their supporters in order to get elected or reelected. And it would be nice if these third-parties were more of a force today. And give American voters more choices in who they can vote for. 

CBS News: Tony La Russa Retires as St. Louis Cardinals Manager

Source:The Daily Press 

The only thing keeping Tony La Russa out of the Hall of Fame as a manager was himself, because he's been managing for 33 years consecutively, his whole career, and I believe he's been the best manager in Major League Baseball that whole period, and that includes people like Tommy Lasorda, Billy Martin, Earl Weaver briefly, Bobby Cox. Joe Torre, Roger Craig, Jim Leyland, and many others.   Some may say Joe Torre because of the championships:  4 World Series Championships, 6 American League Championships, 11 Eastern Division Championships, and 13 playoff appearances.  Only Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox come close to those accomplishments in this time period.

But when Joe Torre was with the New York Yankees from 1996 to 2007, you could make a case that he had the best team in MLB every year he was there, especially from 1998 to 2007, but they came up short several times, as in 2001 losing to the underdog Phoenix Diamondbacks, 2003 losing to the underdog Miami Marlins, both in the World Series, 2002 losing to the underdog Anaheim Angels in the American League Championship, and 2004 blowing a 3-0 Series lead to the Boston Red Sox in the American League Championship, something that will always be hated by Yankee Fans and loved by Red Sox Fans.  I know a few of those fans myself. And of course the Yankees always had the most money in this time period and could always basically put all-star teams together to win the World Series.

Other than the time period during which Tony La Russa was with the Oakland Athletics from 1988 to 1990 or 1991, he was there from 1986 to 1995, but in those 4 years you could make a pretty good case that the Athletics should have won at least three World Series if not four, because from 1988 to 1990 they had the best three teams in baseball.  And they only won one World Series.  Of course, one is better then nothing but in the two World Series that the Athletics lost in 1988 and 1990, they won a total of one game.

They lost 4-1 in the 1988 World Series to, I believe, the worst World Series Champion since 1969, the Los Angeles Dodgers, who only won something like 85 games that season.  And of course you had the famous Kirk Gibson home run in game one to win that game against the best closer in baseball at the time, Dennis Eckersly.  When Tony La Russa was in St. Louis with the Cardinals from 1996 to 2011, he didn't always have the best team and he still won 7-8 Central Division Championships, three National League Championships, and two World Series, and made the playoffs 9-10 times again. When only four teams make the playoffs in each league, they may go up to 5-6 teams in 2012, but we'll see. 

Tony La Russa was the best manager in MLB in his era as well as today because of what he got out of his players for the most part, not including his time in Oakland, but definitely in St. Louis, a midsize market. But with a great fan base, if not the best in MLB, it was just a matter of when Tony La Russa would retire.  That would determine when he was going into the Hall of Fame, because he's a first ballot Hall of Famer in waiting.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

TNT Films: George Wallace (1997) Gary Sinise as Governor George C. Wallace

Source:TNT Films- actor Gary Sinise as Governor George C. Wallace (Democrat, Alabama)

Source:The Daily Times

"Teaser for George Wallace (1997) captured from the Contact (1997) VHS tape."

From what I’ve heard and seen, read about George Wallace the former long time Governor of Alabama, as well as multiple time presidential candidate as a Democrat, as well as an Independent, the 1997 TNT movie about him naturally called George Wallace, is a pretty accurate movie about him. George Wallace started off as a Progressive on economic policy. Things like infrastructure investment, public education, as well as higher education, housing. And was a moderate on social issues. Including civil rights, until he lost the 1958 election for Governor of Alabama.

And then George Wallace calculated politically that in order to become Governor of Alabama and have a future in national politics, especially as a Southerner, he could get by with being for economic progressivism, even tax hikes. As long as that money was doing some good for the State. With schools, roads and so forth. But that he had to run to the Right or Far-Right even on Civil Rights. That he couldn’t support integration, in order to get elected Governor of Alabama.

Even as someone who up to that point was basically a Progressive Democrat and had to been favor of states rights especially on civil rights. In order to get elected Governor of Alabama and reelected and have a future in national politics, or with another party. Which is what he did in 1968 running for President in the Independence Party and there was such a thing back then. The movie George Wallace I believe does a very good job of portraying the man George Wallace. Who was very different in public than in private.

Which is how Gary Sinise plays Governor Wallace in the movie. Someone who didn’t believe in integration in public. Even though in private got along very well with African-Americans and even managed to win some of their votes. Because he was a Progressive on economic policy. And built schools, roads, hospitals and other public infrastructure in their communities. Something that Alabama Governor’s apparently didn’t do much of in the past. And these African-American voters voted with their wallets when it came to Governor Wallace.

And thats what you see in this movie as well. Someone whose public persona was different from his private persona. And without the assassination attempt in 1972 in Laurel, Maryland, when Governor Wallace was campaigning for president in the Maryland Democratic primary, getting shot I believe in the back, maybe we have an Independence Party today. A clear third choice for Independent voters. And a party of their own that George Wallace could’ve continued to build. Along with John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in the 1990s.

The TNT George Wallace movie I believe was very good. As well as the PBS documentary film about him. Setting the Woods on Fire from 2003. Because both films did their research on him and interviewed people who knew him and worked for Governor Wallace. And didn’t try to portray George Wallace as a devil or as a saint. But someone who was a lot more complicated than that, as he was. 

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

ESPN: CFL 1995-Grey Cup-Baltimore Stallions vs. Calgary Stampeders: Highlights

Source:FreeState Now

When the Colts left Baltimore in 1984, Baltimore went out of its way to land a new NFL franchise, including landing the Stars of the USFL in 1984 who played two seasons there before the USFL folded in 1986.  After that Baltimore hosted NFL Preseason games at Baltimore Memorial Stadium, nicknamed, and for good reason, the "Outdoor Insane Asylum" because of the crazy fan atmosphere it had for sporting events.

And then Baltimore applied for an NFL expansion franchise in 1993 but was turned down and lost out to Charlotte and Jacksonville and then struck gold in 1994 when they landed a CFL franchise, the Stallions, that were around for two seasons, 1994-95.  It was two of the greatest two seasons that pro-football franchise had, especially for an expansion franchise, winning two Eastern Conference Championships, playing in two Grey Cup Finals, and winning the Grey Cup in 1995 and barely losing in 1994 to a very good Vancouver Lions team in Vancouver and then beating a very good Calgary Stampeders led by QB a Doug Flutie team in 1995 in Regina. I saw both games on ESPN.  They could've easily won both games, but in 1994 they lost on a last second field goal by Louis Pasiglia  The Stallions had two very good teams in their only two seasons.

But the Stallions were also very well managed, led by their General Partner Jim Speros, a native Marylander who understood Maryland and the City of Baltimore and how passionate they were for pro-football and how much they wanted it back as well as how much they missed the Colts and how much they wanted another pro-football franchise. Speros marketed his club very well and they played at Memorial Stadium, which has a great fan atmosphere.

For both football and baseball with the Orioles, he hired Don Matthews as his head coach/general manager, who had a long successful history in the CFL.  I believe he's in the Hall of Fame winning multiple Grey Cups, and they put two very good teams together, signing players, not based on how good they would be in the NFL, but on how well they would play in the CFL, such as QB Tracy Ham, RB Mike Pringle, WR Chris Armstrong, LB OG Brigance, and others.

And that's why they were so successful so early, because they had a team that had already been successful in the CFL and knew how to play the CFL brand of football, which is different from the NFL.  Without the Stallions and all the success they had and how well Baltimore and Maryland supported their new team by leading the CFL in attendance both seasons, Baltimore probably doesn't land the Ravens in 1995.

The Stallions proved to the NFL that they can support a major league pro-football franchise by how they supported the Stallions, even though Baltimore is only 40 miles from Washington with the Redskins and 90 miles from Philadelphia.  Baltimore could support its own NFL franchise and have the Stallions to thank for that.

Monday, October 17, 2011

C-SPAN: President John F. Kennedy's 1963 Address on Civil Rights

Source:FRS FreeState

When I think of how Democrats should be and this is going to sound real arrogant, but I look at myself when I’m talking politically. A Liberal, because we believe in individual freedom, maximize freedom for the individual, as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our freedom. That means economic, social, political, religious, freedom of choice, as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our freedom. That we get back to what Old School Liberalism is. Not how liberalism is stereotyped today, which looks more like socialism, or progressivism. Liberalism, which is about individual liberty, again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with our choices.

But that’s me. Every Democrat can have their own version of what Democrats should be. But to me we are supposed to be the Liberal Democratic Party in America. Because we believe in liberal democracy. Not a Social Democratic Party, that some so-called Progressives today would like us to become. Or a Centrist Democratic Party, where those people could probably be Republicans as well. Like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But when I think of people who come the closest in representing what democrats and liberalism should be, I think of Jack Kennedy with Bill Clinton being not that far behind. As well as some Liberal Democrats today like Senator John Kerry, another JFK with very similar politics as Jack Kennedy. Senate Deputy Leader Dick Durbin and a few others. People who are Liberals not because they believe in collectivism. That government can solve all problems. But because they believe in individual liberty.

Jack Kennedy, in particular comes closest in representing what democrats are supposed to be. Not just because of his politics, but with his power to communicate his views. Just like Barry Goldwater represents exactly what Republicans are supposed to be because he was definitely a Classical Conservative. And communicated classical conservatism as well as it could be communicated and I would add Ron Reagan to that list as well. Because even though President Kennedy was late to the dance on civil rights and had he got their earlier, maybe he could’ve got the ball rolling on it earlier, but he got there. And it wasn’t that he didn’t believe in civil and equal rights, but that it was politics that was keeping him from it.

Losing the South in the 1964 Election, which is a weakness on President Kennedy’s part and I’m not excusing it. President Kennedy comes closest to representing what democrats should be. Because he was strong and smart on defense not soft that a lot of democrats after him got accused of being. And to a certain extent for good reason, again supported equal rights, individual freedom. Didn’t want the Federal Government growing indefinitely, that there was a limit in what it can do to help the country. Fiscally responsible, these are all things that Liberals actually believe in. That government can help people who are down get themselves up, with what’s called a safety net. Not a welfare state and they are different.

This is what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. Now I’m sure I’m farther to the left on a lot of social issues than President Kennedy. Like decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution and perhaps Gambling as well. But those issues, weren’t considered mainstream back in JFK’s time. But he comes the closest from every Democrat I’ve ever seen, as someone who doesn’t believe in any form of big government. Doesn’t believe in collectivism, but believes in individual freedom instead. Which is one of the reasons why he was such a strong anti-Communist. Not only in Congress, but as President as well and I wish we had more Democrats today like Jack Kennedy.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- Saving American Liberty

Source:FreeState Now

I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers. Because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that were on the book and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. So now the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. You need to have a referee in the economy. Especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that.

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

Source:The FreeState

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.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

VOA News: Activists Seeking to Capitalize on 'Occupy' Protests

Source:FRS FreeState

I believe at least a majority of the country supports these protests on Wall Street all across the political spectrum. Wall Street is not very popular with any political party right now, except for maybe the Libertarian Party and Tea Party. That's why we are seeing large protests all across the country against Wall Street and even corporate America to a certain extent. I wish these protests would reach Congress as well, both in the House and Senate. To get them to start moving an legislating and even coming together.

Occupying Congress and the members who are bought by Wall Street, at least in too many cases, would make more sense, than to simply try to occupy buildings where a lot of investing is done. I mean if this was a real occupy movement Left or Right and this time it is certainly coming the Left, if not Far-Left, you go where the money is so to speak. And occupy the people who take the money from the business's and investors you are say are destroying the American middle class. I know that sounds like commonsense and what does that have to do with American politics, probably nothing, but something to think about. 

And hopefully OWS will at some point, with a 13% approval rating of Congress and with the people who officially who approve of Congress either dead, living in Mongolia, or in a coma, because who could in their right mind who is familiar with our government, actually approve of the job that the U.S. House and Senate are doing right now. There's plenty incentive for them to do that, if they have the guts to take on their political bases. 468 members of Congress between the House and Senate are up for reelection in 2012. 

And if 2012 is another anti-incumbent election, then a lot of those members in both parties could be looking for new jobs after election night. Seriously, the scariest thought for any career politician, perhaps especially someone in Congress, is looking for a new job, Which is why pissed off Americans should be scaring the hell out of them right now.  But right now they are focused on Wall Street so I'll focus there. What these protesters have in common is that they are independent. Meaning they aren't Democrats or Republicans in a lot of cases. 

Not one national organization is running these protests and putting them together. But a bunch of different political organizations perhaps working together. And there's also political diversity within this movement. Socialists, Libertarians and some Liberals are all part of this movement, perhaps even some true Conservatives, who are fed up with bailouts corporate capitalism and want to see change in our economic system.A diverse somewhat American melting pot of political philosophy. Who have found at least one issue to not try to beat the heads of people they normally don't agree with.

The political diversity in this movement is positive for them in this sense, it indicates that there's broad support for it. That there's not one political party behind it and that the country wants to see real change in our country and our economic system. But it's a problem as well, because there isn't a consensus in what change and reform should look like. Conservatives and libertarians would like to see government less involved with our economic system spending less and downsizing and less regulation and no more bailouts and tax less. Socialists obviously are the complete opposite of that and perhaps would like to nationalize some industries, especially banking and health care. 

Liberals would like to see reform with our entitlements, cutting the deficit and debt, infrastructure investment, tax cuts for the middle class, expand free rrade. And bring our foreign troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. There's significant support for what Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals want to do. Socialists have the most ambitious agenda of everyone, perhaps put together. Having a political coalition of LIberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and Socialists is not an odd couple. More like a melting pot put into a big stew, that makes people want to vomit after eating it. 

Socialists want to return America to the 1950s as far as tax policy. Tax Rates starting at 25% and going up to 90% and people like socialist economist Richard Wolfe have been very upfront about that. As well as nationalizing our healthcare system, nationalizing our higher education system. With the Federal Government now paying for everyone to go to college at taxpayer expense. As well as other things. If you think America has a big government now, put Socialists in charge and this government would look like a midget that is shrinking in comparison to what they want to do.

There's potential for a movement here as being against something, but that's the easy part. The question is what do you do instead, what do you and what do you replace it with. And all of these political factions have their own agendas that they would like to see pass. This is not a governing coalition, but more like a protest coalition similar to what the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s. So I don't see a consensus right now in what to do instead after the partnership between Wall Street and the Federal Government is broken up. 

And that can only happen with either getting private money out of federal politics. Can't be done without a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court would throw it out. The only other alternative I see is full- disclosure which is very difficult to pass. Because it would require public officials to release to the public who they deal with and how much money they receive from them. Asking a career politician to release their political contributors, is like asking an obese food addict to give up eating cold turkey for a week straight without supervision. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.

Until there's a movement that has broad support in not only what its against, but what they want to instead and can get elected and reelected and puts proposals on the table that becomes law, We are stuck where we are in gridlock, with a do nothing Congress with its first eye always on the next election and how to get their base to the polls and votes for them. But look at the bright side, when things aren't going well for you and you are in trouble, you'll always have Congress to make fun of and say, "at least I'm not as bad as those people and know how to get my work done".

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960