Socialist Party USA: ‘Response to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address’

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

Source:The Daily Times 

“The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him.”

From the Independent Political Report 

“President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.”

From The White House 

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do.

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government.

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt’s party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party’s. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Why Can't America be More Like Canada?'

Source:The Daily Press

If you look at both America and Canada, you see two gigantic countries, the 2nd and 3rd largest countries in the world physically. And in America's case the 3rd largest population in the World with three-hundred-million people. We have basically the same people both ethnically and racially, a lot of people from Europe. But African and Asian minorities, Middle Eastern minorities and in America's case a lot of Latin-American minorities. Canada might have more Asians, especially in British Columbia. America has more Latin-Americans, two of the largest and most developed nations in the World. 

Both countries have strong capitalist economies with a lot of economic freedom. But Canada has a welfare state with a lot of socialism with its welfare state in the economy. But perhaps not as much as Europe. We both love sports and similar sports. We both like football, baseball and hockey. One country loves hockey, hopefully you can figure out which one on your own. The other country is starting to love hockey. We eat similar foods because again we have similar ethnic groups living in our countries. We both speak English and sound similar speaking English, but with slightly different accents. 

America depending on where you live, almost has a distinct accent for every state. And especially every region of the country. Canada perhaps the same for their provinces, but my experience with Canadians, is that they tend to sound like they are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan. To me anyway Canadians sound like they are from the upper Midwest of the United States. Culturally America and Canada have a lot in common, which is why a lot of Americans go to Canada. And why a lot of Canadians come to America, but I would argue that Canadians come to America to work and live. 

Perhaps Canadians come here so they don't have to see blizzards or snow in April and October. Or to do some of the things they see Americans do on TV. Because they get all of our TV Networks and are very familiar with our culture and news. And are constantly reporting our own news and entertainment and sports. As if they don't have enough going on in their own country. But whatever as the saying goes, all news is good news. In America though, unless you have Direct TV or satellite or live in New England or the Northwest, you don't get the Canadian networks. You don't get to see The National from CBC News, which would be like NBC Nightly News in America. 

But Canadians get to see Nightly News, ABC World News, the CBS Evening News etc. We are very similar, which is why America has this old joke. That we see Canada as the 51st State, because if you fly or drive there from the United States, you might not know you're in a different country. Until you see advertising or street signs, something like that. But even though America and Canada are very similar, we are very different, especially politically. I'll bet you anything that the average Canadian knows as much about American politics, thats today's politics than the average American. 

But that most Americans probably don't know a damn thing about Canadian politics. I'm not one of them, I'm fairly familiar with Canadian politics and again because Canadians follow American news. And we are different because Canadians have a universal single payer health care system. Health Insurance provided by their Federal Government at taxpayers expense. And somehow think its crazy that Americans get to decide where to get their own health insurance. And that fifty-million Americans roughly don't even have health insurance, I agree with them on the last part. 

And that America except for our Far-Left and Far Right, has this liberal-libertarian view of politics. Of get government out of my wallet and bedrooms. Where Canadians pay their high tax rates with smiles on their face and celebrate Tax Day. One thing that Canada has on America though, they don't have a Religious-Right. I'm jealous of Canada as American of that. They don't have people that combine their religion with their politics.  America and Canada two great countries, there isn't another country in the world I would want to share a three-thousand mile border with. 

Even a country that says oot, aboot and agenst, oot and aboot, that says please for everything, even if they are cops. That says a as much as Germans say yah. And because of this Canadians would be the last people we would try to deport, not that we really deport anyone, with about fifteen-million illegal immigrants. But as any good friendship goes, we have plenty in common that makes us friends in the first place. But enough differences so we have things that we can learn about each other and reason to stay friends in the future.

The Onion: Did Media Treat Michele Bachmann Unfairly Because She's an Insane Woman

Source:The Daily Press

In many ways its easier to get attention these days, especially in the era of the information technology revolution, by saying things that make you sound like you’re from another planet. Or in Michelle Bachmann’s case, sound like you’re running for President, of another planet. Who wants to hear a politician say, “I’ll do what I believe is in the best interest of the country. I’ll make decisions based on what I believe is the best thing to do”. Every time there’s a politician or candidate who speaks like that, you can hear insomniacs snoring in the background, getting the best sleep of their lifetimes. Perhaps introducing their brains to sleep for the first time in their lives.

It’s the politicians and candidates, who say things, just to use Michelle Bachmann as an example who says things like, “same-sex marriage is the biggest threat to our national security”. I guess sometime before she said that, the United States won the War on Terror. I could’ve swore the War on Terror was a bigger threat. Or the national debt or deficit, unemployment were bigger threats. Perhaps Representative Bachmann misses the House Intelligence Committee meetings that she’s a member of, that released that information. But perhaps Barack Obama actually is God and fixed all these problems and hearing rumors that President Obama was God in disguise as a human being and President of the United States, was not a rumor, but a fact.

So now the biggest threat to American civilization is actually same- sex marriage. If you’re having a hard time reading that with a straight face, imagine how hard it was to write it. You know with the typing and everything, but hey maybe Representative Bachmann’s gay husband Marcus can fix the same-sex marriage issue, by converting gay people to straight. Its much easier I would say especially in America, because of our size and wealth, 310M people, the largest economy in the world and how far advanced we are technology wise and everything for Mentally Unbalanced people lets say to be nice, to get attention for themselves and whatever they think they are trying to accomplish.

The reason for is this is because of how abnormal the mentally handicapped are and they do and say things, that sane people just wouldn’t say or do. Mitt Romney only gets media attention for one of his speeches, when he says something that makes him seem out of touch. Like when he said he only made 400K$ giving speeches. Well 90% of the country would love to only 400K$ a year. But generally people don’t remember much if anything that Mitt said in one of his speeches.

And one of those reasons is, because Mitt one of the sanest people to ever run for President. The guy is about as exciting as a bowl of oatmeal, which might be insulting to oatmeal. But when someone lets again use Michelle Bachamann, says something that sounds so far out in left field, or right field in Michelle’s case, that they couldn’t see centerfield with binoculars or a telescope, it gets reported right away. Because its crazy, interesting and provocative. And gives the “mainstream media” something else to make fun of.

If you’re lonely and feel like you’re not receiving your fair share of attention, give a crazy speech, say things like “America should be less Socialist like China”. Take pictures of your sensitive area and post them on Twitter, especially if you’re a Public Official. It will always work and you’ll always get attention for doing, excuse the term doing crazy shit like that. But one thing it just might not be the kind of attention you’re looking for. But as the saying goes, all free media is good media. I know I said no more blogs about Michelle Bachmann until she runs for reelection for House. But this popped in my head.

The Huffington Post: Maegan Carberry: A State of The Union Guide For Socialists and Racists

Source:Free State MD

Maegan Carberry is right, being a Liberal doesn’t make someone a Socialist. And being a Conservati­ve doesn’t make someone a racist. But that should go without saying, but the question is why being a Liberal or Conservative, doesn’t make those people Socialists or Racists. Is because both liberalism and conservatism are based on individual liberty and limited government­. Liberals and Conservati­ves both believe, going from Jack Kennedy to Ron Reagan, that people should be judge as individual­s, not members of groups.

And that people should be able to live their own lives and not be overburden by government­. Through high taxes and government telling people how to live their lives. With limited government­, we don’t have a welfare state, with government trying to take care of us. But a safety net to help people who need it get back on their feet. And with limited government­, we don’t have especially the Federal Government­ trying to prevent same-sex Marriage from becoming law. Or being conservative about all aspects of the federal budget, except for the defense budget. That you have to be fiscally responsible all across the federal budget.

What gets stereotype­d today as liberalism and conservatism, aren’t liberalism and conservatism. But in liberalism­’s case, sort of looks like neo-communism or democratic socialism. Wanting government to take care of people with a King Kong sized superstate there to manage our economic and personal lives for us. Managing our education, health care, health insurance, diet and exercise, what we can watch and how we can talk to people. “That individual freedom is dangerous because people are generally too stupid to manage their own economic and personal lives. That freedom is the freedom to make mistakes at the costs of Big Government. Mr. Uncle Sam, the national parent of America.

In conservatism’s case, it’s really neoconservatism. A mixture of a warped interpretation of Christianity, that you would think would’ve been made up in some Hollywood script, but that there are Americans who take this theocratic ideology seriously and treat it as its real. Mixed in with Martial Law, where personal freedom, things like to the right to privacy, Freedom of Speech that Neoconservatives, disagree with, property rights are essentially outlawed. In the name of protecting the moral fiber, character and security of the superstate. Big government authoritarian nanny statist ideology when it comes personal issues and freedom.

Liberalism is not socialism or communism. And conservatism is not neoconservatism, a theocratic and military authoritarian ideology. Liberalism and conservatism are both anti-statism. Not anti-state, but that the state needs to be limited to doing the things that the only the state can do. Which doesn’t include managing the lives of the people.

Talking Points Memo: Representative Michele Bachmann: We Should be Less Socialist Like China

Source:The Daily Press

About three weeks ago after Representative Michelle Bachmann did Minnesota and the United States a favor by dropping out of the Republican race for president and then announcing a few days later that she wasn’t going to run for reelection to the House. That because of these things and that Michelle Bachmann would hopefully go home go back to the mental hospital, go back to high school and take a class on American history. Take a course about foreign policy and get the help that she needs. So in the future she’ll say less ignorant things and present them as fact.

Well that all sounds like a dream now and after she announced she’s running for reelection to the House. Hopefully House Democrats will give her a tough run this time, especially now that Representative Bachmann is very unpopular. Not only in her home State of Minnesota, but in her House district, thanks to her presidential campaign. After making a short story longer, I told myself that I was going to layoff Representative Bachmann, at least until her general election campaign in the fall. In the House and that’s assuming she wins the Republican primary, that might not be a safe bet after her presidential campaign, which is why she’s so unpopular in Minnesota right now.

So I found another ignorant thing that Representative Bachmann said in one of the November debates. When her presidential campaign was already on life support, something her political strategist Ed Rollins figured out. Which is why he resigned, but she didn’t figure out until January after getting just 5% of the vote in Iowa. During the November debate, Scott Pelley anchor of the CBS Evening News, asked the candidates something about the economy. And basically asked Representative Bachmann what is her economic policy, or something to that effect. She said in her own words, first she goes off about the LBJ Great Society and said that China doesn’t have things like cash transfers and Food Stamps as she called it. It’s no longer called Food Stamps.

And then Representative Bachmann said that “America should become less socialist like China”. Apparently according to Michelle Bachmann, America is more socialist than China. China being a country with state-owned industries. What’s the classic definition of socialism. The state owns the means and production of society. State-owned industries fits that like a glove. Now of course the People’s Republic no longer fits the classic definition of socialism. Which is good for them and the main reason why their economy is now the 2nd largest in the world, sorry Japan. Because they’ve privatized their economy and now have probably the largest growing private sectors in the world.

Representative Bachmann also said that China doesn’t have a welfare state unlike America. This is a person who serves on the House Intelligence Committee by the way. If being intelligent was a requirement to serve on that committee, Michelle Bachmann wouldn’t be qualified to serve on that committee. Article 14 of the P.R. Constitution China’s version of the U.S. Constitution, but obviously a hell of a lot different, states that the state meaning the P.R. Central Government builds and improves a welfare system that corresponds with the level of economic development in the country.

China has a Ministry of Human Resources and social welfare. That oversees a safety net that has programs like, cash transfers. Sounds like welfare or unemployment insurance right. Food assistance, sounds like Food Stamps right. Money for education for people who can’t afford to send their kids to school. Vouchers for health care and I’m sure other things as well. Representative Michelle Bachmann is a three term U.S. Representative from Minnesota, elected in 2006. The year Congressional Democrats took back Congress.

Michelle serves on the House Intelligence Committee, but she knows so much that isn’t true or just makes up things. As she goes along, she’s extremely partisan by nature, so maybe that’s her issue and that’s the closest thing I’ll say to being nice to her. Yet she’s constantly saying things that aren’t true. And hopefully as a result she won’t be back to serve in the 113th Congress next year.

Democracy Now: Video: Amy Goodman Interviews Tavis Smiley & Cornell West: The Rich and the Rest of Us

Source:The FreeState

Tavis Smiley who personally I like, but generally don’t agree with, but who’s someone who I respect, hosted a panel discussion that C-Span, thank God for C-Span, broadcasted on MLK Day on Monday. If you guessed Tavis Smiley was there, you would be correct, but it had Professor Cornel West, progressive activist Michael Moore, financial adviser Suzie Orman and a young women. Who’s name I can’t remember and I didn’t recognize it. 

But I thought what won the panel discussion even though it wasn’t a debate, but hit the nail on the head if you want to use that expression, I would’ve gone farther in what she was saying, but she did a very good job of making points and a case in how to win the War on Poverty. By actually moving people out of poverty, that you generally don’t hear from today's Progressives. Who generally use their time to bash capitalism, or call for more public assistance.

A lot of this discussion was basically about how we can move away from Capitalism and explaining how President Bush basically screwed the American economy. And that President Obama wasn’t progressive enough to fix it. Because he wasn’t in favor of their big government programs. And calling for more Welfare etc, when it comes to poverty. Progressive Socialists tend to be more about giving people in poverty more Welfare. 

More Welfare insurance at taxpayers expense of course. And are more interested in sustaining people in poverty. But this young lady was talking about actually moving people out of poverty. Which is completely different, so they can be self-sufficient and get off of public assistance. And she’s the only person that made this discussion worth watching. the War on Poverty a war that President Johnson declared in 1965 47 years ago. If you were born that year, your Middle Age now.  

And today you might not even remember LBJ as President. But the solutions to finally win this war, are pretty simple, but harder to put into practice. First of all you need a good economy that has strong job growth. We are finally starting to see that now. But to help adults who currently live in poverty whether they are working or on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance, is through education and job training. Get them back into school, so they can get themselves the skills they need to get a good job and get off of public assistance. That takes money, but would pay for itself in the long run, because we would be creating new taxpayers.

Long-term what we need to be doing to avoid kids living in poverty as adults. Or end up in the corrections system, is to make sure they stay in school. And get a good education, while their parents are going back to school. And to do this we need to reform our public education system. And that gets to better educators and competition inside the public education system, so low-income parents can send their kids to good schools as well. 

Not be forced to send their kids to schools because of where they live. That's called public school choice and we have to do something about our high dropout rate. Encourage kids to stay in school, not drop out and have kids and end up on public assistance. Or get involved in organized crime and in the corrections system. We proved in the 1990s with the Clinton Administration, with Welfare to Work. 

That we can do this, move people out of poverty and into the middle class. By empowering them to get the skills that they need to get a good job and not live on public assistance. To the point that we got our poverty rate down to 13%. I believe a record low for the United States is an approach that we need to get back to.

FORA-TV: Daniel Lowenstein- 'Five Reasons to Keep the Electoral College'

Source:FORA-TV- Professor Daniel Lowenstein: on the Electoral College.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"UCLA Law Professor Daniel Lowenstein offers five arguments to maintain the Electoral College as the method for choosing the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.

However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new - The Commonwealth Club of California

Daniel Lowenstein teaches Election Law, Statutory Interpretation & Legislative Process, Political Theory, and Law & Literature. A leading expert on election law, he has represented members of the House of Representatives in litigation regarding reapportionment and the constitutionality of term limits. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the award-winning theatre troupe Interact and regularly brings the company to the School of Law to perform plays with legal themes, such as Sophocles' Antigone, Ibsen's Rosmerholm, and Wouk's The Caine Mutiny Court Martial.

Professor Lowenstein worked as a staff attorney at California Rural Legal Assistance for two and one-half years. While working for California's Secretary of State, Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 1971, he specialized in election law, and was the main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Professor Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission. He has served on the national governing board of Common Cause and has been a board member and a vice president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights."

From FORA-TV

Why do we have an Electoral College in the United States? To keep elitist Democrats and Republicans who believe people who live in Small Sates are redneck and hillbilly's who don't matter and that their votes don't count, from ignoring them. If you're in a tight presidential race and it's going to come down to a few of states swing States like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana matter and that forces you to campaign there. 

And those voters get to see who'll be the next President of the United States as well who are also taxpayers. Instead of snobby Democrats just campaigning in the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Florida, a few big States in the Midwest and California. And just speaking to the wine and cheese yuppy crowds. Now they have to campaign in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado. 

Or snobby Republicans just campaigning in the Bible Belt Bible toting crowds and cherry pick a few States in the Midwest. In order to get elected President of the United States. Now they have to see if they can pick off Pennsylvania or Michigan or Illinois or Wisconsin or Minnesota. That's why we have the Electoral College, to prevent snobby presidential candidates from just targeting 50% of the voting public. Plus one vote in order to get elected President of the United States. 

We don't live in a majoritarian democracy, where 50% plus one is all you need to get into power as far as being President. Or a parliamentary democracy where we let our members of Congress make these decisions for us. We live in a republic in a form of a liberal democracy and being President is harder to achieve. Is our Electoral College perfect, of course not, but I sure as hell would take over anything that the rest of the world has. But we could definitely improve it. 

And if that probably takes a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish that, then I would be open to that. I have a problem with presidential candidates winning the popular vote in at least one case by a million votes with Vice President Al Gore back in 2000 and not winning the presidency. Even though a million more voters preferred that Al Gore be President of the United States, instead of GOV. George W. Bush. I'm not saying that as a Democrat, I really have a problem with that and see that as small d and l anti-liberal democratic. 

But not to the point where I'm willing to throw out the Electoral College. And replace it with a popular vote or move to a parliamentary social democracy like you see in Europe. I would like to see a political system that keeps the Electoral College, but amends it to be President of the United States, you have to win the Electoral College as well as popular vote. If there's a split decision, we would have a runoff a week later between the top two presidential candidates. Which would be decided by Popular Vote. 

I would like to see other changes to our presidential electoral System as well. If you only win lets says 40% of one State but finish first with multiple candidates, you shouldn't be awarded with all the electoral votes. But instead they would be divided up for everyone. Based on what percentage of the vote they get. 

If you win 60% of a state or more, then you can keep all of the Electoral Votes. That would be a better electoral system that would be more democratic. But not scrap the Electoral College because some people believe others have too much say based on where they live and don't like their culture and lifestyles.

So This is Washington: The Real Mitt Romney?

Source:The Daily Press

Mitt Romney’s father George Romney as Governor of Michigan and as a presidential candidate, he was basically a Center-Right Republican. Strong economic Conservative credentials, but moderate-liberal on social issues. His son Mitt Romney in his heart fits into whatever faction of that Republican Party that remains today. Mitt’s problem is that what he believes in politically, doesn’t fit in very well with today’s Republican Party. So positions he takes in the past, like when he ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 and Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, doesn’t fit in with the rest of the Republican Party.

Where instead of contending with Moderates and Conservatives and even Liberals, he has to contend with Religious and Neoconservatives and now the Tea Party that has both of those political factions in it and even Libertarians. So when he’s running for Senate and Governor, he’s pro-choice on abortion. He was a moderate conservative Governor of Massachusetts. When he runs for President in 2007-08 and running in the Bible Belt, he decides to be the Christian Conservative Candidate. Because he knows Mike Huckabee is running and he’s going to need Christian Conservatives to be elected President of the United States.

Two problems that Romney had with that Campaign, was that the Christian-Right didn’t believe him and they were correct. And that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and they see Mormonism as a cult. Anytime you try to appeal to a religious cult like the Christian-Right (as I would label them) you’re looking for trouble, but that also goes to your character, or lack of it. Trying to talk sense to cult followers, is like trying to take a shower without water. What’s the point.

I call Mitt Romney Flip Flopper because that’s what he does and what he is. The real Mitt Romney no longer fits in with the GOP. Those days are gone, this is no longer the Republican Party of Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Bob Dole and others. This is the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and others. So Romney feels the need to make up these new characters. Moderate Romney in 1994 and 2002, Bible Belt Romney in 2007-08 and now the businessman with results Romney in 2011-12. He’s whoever he feels he needs to be to get the job he’s running for and his act is running dry.

Which is why the Republican Party is not sold on him yet and if you look at these GOP presidential debates a strong presidential candidate could knock most of those schmucks out. But because we are talking about Mitt Romney, he gets to appear on the same stage as Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and the audience is left to wonder who won. Ron Reagan with this lack of competition, would’ve already had the GOP nomination in the bag by now. You ask Mitt Romney who is Mitt Romney and you get several different answers from the same person.

And you’re thinking, “he just described several different people. I’m not sure he knows who he is, if he gave you and honest answer.” He might say, “I’m who I believe I need to be in order to get to where I want to be.” (Under truth serum) Which would be true, but he doesn’t have the guts to say that and his political career, I mean his running for office career would be over. He’s only held one public office, because he’s lost almost every election he’s ever ran for. Again because of the multiple personality Mitt he’s become a career campaigner who rarely wins, but goes by the notion, “once you fail, try, try again.”

AlterNet: Melissa Gira Grant: Confiscating Condoms? The Dumbfounding Ways Police Deal With Prostitution

Source:Free State MD

I know I wrote a blog about our over expensive criminal justice and corrections system last night. But I found another example of why its so expensive. “Confiscating condoms”, as if we don’t have enough unwanted pregnancies in America. People raising kids before they are ready to and raising them in poverty. Or we don’t have enough people with sexually transmitted diseases in America. Or we don’t have enough people in our corrections system. Or we don’t have again what Milton Friedman called “Bad Laws”.

Laws designed to protect people from themselves. Rather than protecting innocent people from the harm of dangerous criminals. Laws that Uncle Sam passes that says, "Your Uncle Sam knows what is best for you. Even though I never met you or don't even know you exist. I'm Uncle Sam which is another way of saying God and I know what is best for you". Laws are supposed to be for to protect the innocent, especially children from the harm of predators. Especially in a liberal democracy like America. And another big government presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, the Big Government King, at least as far as I'm concern, sounds like a burger restaurant or something. Now coming out for banning condoms, which would make these issues even worse. 

There’s piles and piles of evidence in America that if you try to force people to stop doing something that they want to do, marijuana, gambling and yes prostitution are all perfect examples of this, that if they want to do something bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it. And screw the consequences if they want to do it bad enough. And if you don't believe me about the piles of evidence, just ask a parent, especially a parent with more than one kid and especially with at least one teenager. And ask them about what it is like for them to try to get their kids to do something that they don't want to do, or stop doing something that like doing for their own good. 

Prostitution being of course the oldest profession in the world, enough said is a perfect example of that. Crimes should be things that hurt other people. Not what people do with their own lives. And that's exactly what “Bad Laws” are, or the Uncle Sam Big Brother Nanny State micromanager is about. Trying to manage other people's lives for them, because you think they are too stupid to do that for themselves. Trying to control what people do with their own lives, even if they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing. 

I’m not going to pay for sex and would never by choice work as a prostitute. But there are a lot of other things that I wouldn’t do. Doesn't mean I want to outlaw them for everyone else. Because I don’t want to do them and believe they would be bad choices for me. Doesn’t mean I believe these activities should be illegal. Just means I believe people should have the freedom of choice to make these decisions for themselves. And the way to make these activities as safe as possible, is not by outlawing where they go underground and are still done anyway. But through regulation and taxation to make them as safe as possible.
Source:Human Rights Watch

AlterNet: 'In Onion Worthy News - Major GOP Candidates All Pledge to Be Hard on Porn'

Source:The Daily Journal

In other Onion worthy news, I actually agree with the AlterNet on something. Which tells me, its time for another head examination. I generally only read the AlterNet to see what Far-Left conspiracy theorists are up to. And if there’s anything I can do to help them. Suggest certain medicine, a good shrink, perhaps a Mental Institution. 

But from time to time, about as often as oceans are dry and Lindsay Lohan is sober, the AlterNet produces a good story that's actually worth reading and should be taken seriously. Like with their reporting on crime and punishment. And homelessness and the broader War on Poverty. Back in July when Michelle Bachmann, perhaps better known as the “Iron Lady” at her Mental Hospital being off her medicine decided to run for president and make pornography and same-sex marriage her key issues. That is what happens when she is off her medicine. 

Hopefully Michelle is back now getting the help she badly needs at her institution. And perhaps she is now running for President and away inside her mental hospital. Where she’s a resident, but during her time as an escaped patient, she and Rick Santorum took the same pledge, to outlaw pornography. If the Pope were to convert to Islam and Ron Paul were to declare himself now as a Socialist and only then would Michelle or Rick might have an ice balls chance in hell of winning the presidency. 

Michelle and Rick both argued over who singed the pledge first to outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage and return America to the 1950s. Michelle Bachmann finally won the debate, by saying "ha! I Singed it first" Nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in dog do". How you come back from that. This is the state of the Republican Party right now. This is what you have to do to be nominated for president there. 

These are the issues that drive the GOP right now. Like cabbies drive cars, yeah we might have 8.5% Unemployment, a 15T$ national debt and budget deficit approaching 2T$ and rising costs of living. But it's your positions on these that are the issues that only 10% of the country cares about, that the Far-Right of the Republican Party cares about. 

Small percentage of the country at large, but big enough that the GOP still needs them to win. Because of their inability to bring voters from outside of this small community into the party. These issues won’t put anyone back to work, except for people who fight against these things like on the Christian Right, but lay off more people or put more people in Prison that currently work in the adult entertainment industry. 

The Atlantic: Jon Stewart to Jon Hunstman: The Hunt is Over!

Source:Real Life Journal

Jon Huntsman has spent the better of the last six months campaigning for votes  in New Hampshire, The “Live Free or Die State”, a state that should play well for him and his classical liberal leanings and managed just 17% of the vote. Finishing seven points behind the 2nd place finisher in Ron Paul. GOV. Huntsman was going after the sane vote in the Republican Party. Apparently most of those people voted for him, congratulations. Huntsman is clearly a very sane and common sense presidential candidate. "These are the problems, this is how I would try to solve them". 

Instead of spending years debating the issues and looking for absolute power, he would actually try to solve problems. I give him a lot of credit for that, his problem however is not only is he in the wrong political party for his politics, (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson what thats like) but he’s looking to appeal to sane, credible, intelligent common sense voters. In a party that's dominated by Religious and Neoconservatives.

Jon Huntsman is running for President in a party where a lot of base cares more about a candidates position on condoms, adultery, pornography, same-sex marriage, gambling, than they do who’s got the best economic and foreign policy’s. It's like searching in a mental hospital for the sanest people there, that don’t work there. Finding a couple of people who are about to be released and than wondering why there are so many crazy people here. It's a mental hospital for Heaven Sake!. 

As GOV. Huntsman likes to say on the campaign trail. What were you expecting to fine, college professors. And that's the state of the GOP right now, there too many crazy people for acCommon sense classical liberal or conservative presidential candidate there. Personally I believe Jon Huntsman would make one hell of a Liberal Democrat. In the sense of what liberalism really is and not how its stereotyped today.

And when the clock finally goes off in his head and he realizes that his time is over in the GOP, I believe he should consider a 3rd-party bid. Not to win because that's not going to happen. But just to let the American voters who are fed up with out two-party System, that there's other options out there and people who think like them.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Un-Presidential Campaign For President

Source:The Daily Press

The leadership in the Republican Party in 2011 or so decided that Mitt Romney was going to become the presidential nominee in 2012. And that they decided that they were going to do whatever they could to make that happen. And now they are pardon the phrase, shitting bricks, because their guy, the supposed frontrunner Mitt Romney, has only won 1-3 of the first Republican contests. Hardly looking like a frontrunner. 

Mitt Romney, someone who won't even defend himself. By saying that "I was in corporate America, I made a lot of money taking failing companies and turning them around. And sometimes that means you have to lay people off, in order to save the company. And so you don't have to fire more people in the future and be able to hire more people. And I made a lot of money because I turned these companies around, that are now successful". That's called American capitalism, there's nothing wrong with being successful in life. 

Especially when others benefit from that success and you do it legally. Not by screwing people over, especially with a smile on your face. That's what Mitt Romney should be saying about his business career, but wait we are talking about Mitt Romney. Aka Flip Flopper, the man who feels the need to please everyone he meets, who can't come up with a simple answer to any question. 

I hate to say this because I have a lot of respect for Senator John Kerry. He's one of my favorite members of Congress, but Mitt Romney in 2012, is looking like John Kerry from 2004. And because of Mitt's inability to communicate to Republican voters, you know we aint talking Albert Einstein here, Republican Voters are fairly simple people. "Keep my taxes and regulations down, cut them whenever possible, defend the nation, Jesus, guns and country". And Mitt doesn't seem able to speak their language. 

And because of this, as well as being the master of flip flops and I'm not talking about feet, Mitt Romney finds himself in his political battle of his lifetime. Against someone with a 27% approval rating nationally and 56% negative rating in Newt Gingrich. On stage debating people like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum and hasn't really won a debate yet. At least since he came back against Rick Perry in September. If Mitt Romney is a frontrunner, I sure as hell would like to know what the joke candidate looks like. 

Well that would be Michelle Bachmann, but she's back in the nut U.S. House. So now we need someone else to take that role and that since Newt has already cut Mitt's big lead in Florida, the GOP establishment may be looking to replace Mitt and the GOP base which is different from the establishment. We are not there yet but if the Newter wins Florida and he'll have a couple of opportunities to do that this week, they are playing in Newt's territory with two big Florida debates, all hell could break lose in the GOP. 

Which finally gets me to Sarah Palin who I said a year ago would not run for president in 2012. Even though she would be my favorite Republican candidate, to make fun of. And be President Obama's personal escort to reelection, but she's not going to do us that favor. And put the country through the pain and embarrassment of her presidential campaign. But I could see a post Mitt campaign, a call to the bullpen if you will, if the GOP establishment feels Mitt is no longer up to it. Will either be beat by Newt, or get pushed by Newt to the Republican convention. With no one knowing who won, until they actually count the votes. 1976 all over again. 

Huffington Post: Sam Stein: John McCain 200-Page Mitt Romney Opposition Research Book From 2008 Found

Source:FreeState MD 

John McCain to Mitt Romney-

"I’m sorry Mitt I didn’t mean it, I thought you were an oil slick schmuck five years ago. Well I still do, but hell, at least your better than President Obama. Well I’m 75 years old and I”m not always sure what I believe. I was Captain of the Straight Talk Express back in 2000. But that train ran out of gas in 2007, because there was this other job that I wanted as well and besides I’m a Republican­. So it was my turn to run for it. Thats how we roll in the GOP, a party I’m sure your familiar with. 

The Grand Old Party and its a job you’ve run for twice yourself and who knows maybe after you crash and burn in 2012, we’ll be dumb enough to nominate you again. I’m sorry I had this, is this guy the best we can do expression on my face? When I endorse you after I waited till it was clear you’ll be our nominee. You know so I wasn’t taking a risk or anything, I am a politician after all. 

When you're talking about Washington insiders, I’m still a member of that club. Been in Congress for now 29 years. As much as I they try to kick me out, because I’m a maverick insider. Huh slick name, almost as slick as one of your speeches. But again I wish you the best of luck and hope you beat the other guy". Not exactly a ringing endorsement from Senator John McCain of Mitt Romney. But that is what Mitt I guess can expect, considering he's Mitt Romney and running for president in the Republican Party. 

Bad Lip Reading: Video: Rick Perry For President

Source:The Daily Post

When you’re trying to appeal to the farthest fringe flank in your party, the most ignorant of the ignorant, people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Abraham Lincoln, or homosexuals were behind the 9/11 Attacks, Barack Obama is an African Muslim who wasn’t born in the United States, the ignorant of the ignorant, to get their votes, because you want to win a Republican caucus to win the Republican nomination for president, you know your presidential campaign is in sad shape. Because you’re trying to appeal to worst in people to get their support. “Look I’m just as dumb as you are, hell I don’t even know my own positions by heart. We go well together, vote for me.

Thats the state of Governor Rick Perry’s presidential campaign. “I can’t win this thing by appealing to the best in you, which is what Jack Kennedy and Ron Reagan did. So I’m going to appeal to worst in you the most ignorant people in the country. To get their support for president.” When you have to go to the Far-Right for their support this early on and it backfires winning 10% in the Iowa Caucus only toppling Michelle Bachmann as far as candidates who ran hard in Iowa, you know, well if you understand politics you know your presidential campaign is basically over. Win South Carolina or move back Texas and actually do your job as Governor there for good. Thats Rick Perry for President 2012, he’s preying he can have someone’s support, who’s actually eligible to vote.

What gets me is that Rick Perry is one of the leading fundraisers in the Republican Party right now. He has the money to go far as far as campaigning. He could probably make it to Super Tuesday in February financially without winning one state. But who are these people who are supporting him and still supporting him. Talk about a bad investment or business decision. It would be like thousand shares in Enron back in 2001-02. The day it filed for bankruptcy and then trying to get your money back. Or investing a million dollars in a store that sells snow mobiles in South Florida. Who needs a Snow Mobile on the beach?

This is a guy who gets mouth tied in a debate when asked which three Federal agency’s he would eliminate. Which is supposed to be the centerpiece of his fiscal plan. Which would be like someone singing the national anthem, a professional singer use to performing in front of big crowds, performing at a football game, can’t remember the first three lyrics of the national anthem. Or a taxi driver not knowing the speed limit. Or running in the State of Florida on eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Or coming out for the destruction of Israel in New York.

When you think of the term “not ready for prime time”, it fits in with Rick Perry for president. Like fries fit in with cheeseburgers. He’s clearly unprepared and had no idea what he was getting into. Like the media actually paying attention to what you say, asking tough questions, running negative advertising. I believe he was expecting that he’s Rick Perry he’s going to unite the Tea Party with the Religious Right. And have a cakewalk to the Republican nomination for president and it just didn’t work out for him that way.

President John F. Kennedy: Speech On Tax Cuts

Source:Free State MD

First of all, I want to thank my friend and one of my subscribers Brendan Owens from Facebook for giving me the inspiration to write this blog. about tax cuts. Parts of the last two nights we’ve been debating tax cuts on Facebook as good friends can do in a respectful way. He’s a self-described Democratic Socialist. I don’t say that to be insulting, but that’s how he describes his politics. I’m a self-described Liberal Democrat, so we have plenty to debate about outside of social issues, where we tend to agree. At least so far, we haven’t discussed gun rights yet, but maybe in the future.

Jack Kennedy, a political hero of mine and I know I’ve said this many times, but it’s definitely true. Inherited a recession, or a weak economy when he became President in 1961. The economy boomed for the most part in the 1950s under the Eisenhower Administration. But went into recession in I believe in 1958. It cost the Republican Party a bunch of seats in Congress that year. As Congressional Democrats added to their majorities, thanks to the Southern Conservative Caucus and others. And proposed an Economic Recovery Act that had I believe when the largest tax cut in American history.

Back then, we had tax rates ranging from 25-90%. Thank God for all the tax deductions! Or our economy would be like Russia, with basically no property rights. Basically the Federal Government would take most of your money from you in income and payroll taxes and then let you decide how much of it you could get back in order to pay your bills. It was redistribution of your own wealth through high tax rates. President Kennedy, recognized that those high tax rates were slowing down economic growth and economic incentive for people to work hard and make a good living. Because the Federal Government would collect so much of the money. Those high tax rates didn’t make much sense even from a socialist point of view other than to hold down the rich or something. Because America still didn’t have much of a safety net. This was right before the Great Society.

The 1960s, was one of the best decades we’ve ever had economically at least in the 20th Century. With high economic and job growth for most of that decade and low unemployment. One of the reasons why President Johnson was elected in a landslide in 1964 and if it wasn’t for the Vietnam War, he probably would’ve been reelected in a landslide as well. The Kennedy tax cuts by the way, we aint talking about Goldwater-Reagan or Kemp-Roth, but Jack Kennedy a Liberal Democrat, was a big part for the 1960s economic expansion. And it wasn’t a supply side tax cut, but they paid for it by eliminating tax loopholes.

The Kennedy tax cuts, had tax reform in it. Lower tax rates while eliminating tax loopholes. Letting people keep more of their money for them to decide how to spend it. Encouraging people to be more productive, because they would get to keep more of their money as a result. Instead of the Federal Government taking most of it from them. The Kennedy tax cuts plus the Vietnam War with the boom in the military industry as well as people being sent to Vietnam opening up more jobs at home, are reasons for the economic expansion of the 1960s.

In 1978 Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth, two Conservative Republican members of Congress, proposed their own tax cuts that later became the 1981 Economic Recovery Act that President Reagan singed into law. It did help jump-start the economy and lead to the economic boom of the 1980s. But the difference being President Reagan didn’t pay for his tax cuts, or even propose to do so. He didn’t propose on balanced budget plan to Congress his entire eight years. He had a Republican Senate for six years. His theory was that supply side tax cuts pay for themselves. He was wrong if you look at the mountain of debt as a result in his government expansion and tax cuts. But President Kennedy was an inspiration for their tax cuts.

Jason Wright: Tribute to Ronald Reagan: How The GOP Has Moved Away From Reagan

Source:The FreeState

Happy New Year everyone! I hope anyone reading this blog is now at least somewhat sober and prepared to have a great 2012. I wrote a blog last year for Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday laying out why even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, what I like and respect about President Reagan and I’ll probably be doing the same thing for his 101st Birthday this year. And since we are just a little more than a month away from his birthday and with the Iowa Republican Caucus tomorrow, why not kick off 2012 for FreeState Plus with a look at Ron Reagan and the state of the current Republican Party.

We are about 24 hours away from the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus which will decide who’ll have the momentum going into the New Hampshire primary. And the Republican Party still has no presidential candidate that resembles Ronald Reagan as a Reagan Conservative, a Classical Conservative. Who truly believed that big government was the problem with America and the way to get America going again was to get big government off the backs of the American people. And let free people live their lives.

All the GOP presidential candidates, of course except for Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, believe in some form of big government. Some new intrusion into the lives of the American people in how we can live our own lives and a new intrusion in how states can govern themselves. Even if they are within the U.S. Constitution. And got this idea that free people should be free to live their own lives. But as long as they are living them the way these Neoconservatives want them to live. And that’s another thing, there isn’t a Constitutional Conservative, again except maybe Ron Paul and John Huntsman. I find that unbelievable that a political party that calls themselves the Republican Party, wouldn’t have a Constitutional Conservative, all these candidates except for again Paul and Huntsman.

Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman and I’ll just say it, Paul and Huntsman are running for President in the wrong party. And I guess have missed the memo, or something and haven’t figured that out all of these candidates except for Paul and Huntsman, want to change the U.S. Constitution to limit our individual liberty. What happened to the Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Republican Party, Goldwater and Reagan are obviously dead. But their ideas are not, what happened to their supporters who voted for them. And the political activists that brought about the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Winning 44 States, 56% of the Popular Vote in the presidential election. Senate Republicans winning back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

These people again except for the Huntsman and Paul Supporters and few Members of Congress. Like Representative Paul, Senator Paul, Senator Lee, Senator Johnson, you don’t hear from Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party anymore. The GOP is now dominated by Religious and Neoconservatives Big Government Republicans that want to limit our individual liberty, mot protect it. Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan would not recognize the Republican Party today and I believe may even of left it. You could get this sense of how Senator Goldwater felt about the current GOP in the late 80s and 90s after he had already left Congress. And neither one of them could win the Republican nomination for president in either 2008 or 2012. If they were able to run for it.