Associated Press: U.S. House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban

Source:FRS FreeState 

Looks like women won't have to ask Uncle Sam's permission to use the bathroom or interfere with her and her doctor in decisions they make regarding her health. A Federal appeals court rules that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that President Clinton signed into law back in 1996 that the Republican Congress passed, that President Clinton now says was a mistake to sign into law, is ruled Unconstitutional by a Federal appeals court. Because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A familiar ruling and why I predict that all same-sex marriage bans will be ruled unconstitutional in the future. 

New York City bans sweet drinks, how Mayor Mike Bloomberg was ever a Republican, I'll never know. Lately he doesn't look like a Democrat either, but governing as a Progressive or Democratic Socialist or Green. And apparently he feels he knows best what New Yorkers should drink, eat or smoke. I can understand no smoking sections in bars and especially on planes, as a non-smoker myself, but to tell people they simply can't smoke, interferes with their freedom of choice. According to the Los Angeles Time, California a state that almost passed marijuana legalization in 2010, that's now losing ground in the Golden State and with taxes going up, big government is on the march in California. 

Whether big government is coming from statists on the Far-Left or its coming from statists on the Far-Right, it's still big government. And it's too big, because it interferes with how free adults live their own lives, not how we live amongst each other. But how we live our lives as individuals. Whether it involves health care, with abortion or telling people they have to take government health insurance. Or outlawing same-sex marriage, because you don't like homosexuals and it violates your religious freedom to allow them to get married. 

How same-sex marriage violates anything to me, is a mystery that could make for a good book or movie. And maybe I'll write about that in the future or telling people they can't have soft drinks, because it's unhealthy for them, again interfering with how free adults live their own lives. We are a liberal democracy and because of that we have the liberty to live our own lives.  Statists whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right, seem to have such boring lives, that minding their own business puts them to sleep. So they feel the need to mind other people's business. What health care they can have, who they can marry, what they watch on TV, what they can eat and drink etc. And it's undemocratic because you are saying with these laws, that end up getting thrown out, is that you know best how to live the lives of the people you represent, better than them.

The USFL History: The United States Football League Comes Back

Source:Real Life Journal

I have already written a blog about why the United Sates Football League failed in the mid 1980s and how it could've succeeded. So I'm not going to focus too much on that but the reasons why the USFL could've succeeded and still be in business today are the same reasons how a USFL could make it today, because there are enough non NFL markets in America, to support a USFL franchise. And enough good NFL caliber players, to make the USFL work today, who maybe aren't ready for the NFL yet or have been overlooked and just need that one shot to make it.

The NFL is somewhat short on quarterbacks offensive lineman, defensive lineman and there are plenty of NFL players, that simply aren't ready to be stars in the NFL today. And need time to develop and when they are sent out to play now, they simply don't look ready to play yet, but if they are playing in the USFL and given a chance to develop and play and not have to worry about playing against the best football players in the World, then the pressure is off to a certain extent instead of trying to live up to some huge contract that they signed and would be better off starting in the USFL.

Put those players in the USFL, they would be surrounded by good young players, who just need time to develop or that shot to be a good NFL or USFL player. The USFL could serve as either a developmental league for the NFL or they could end up, however they develop their players and are able to attract players to their league perhaps one day end up being part of the NFL or perhaps merging with the Canadian Football League, the USFL and maybe we could end up with some type Continental Bowl in the future.

But in the short-term, the USFL needs to be about developing NFL players, that aren't ready to be in the NFL yet or players that are so far down on the depth chart, that they aren't getting a chance to develop. And they need do this by being a spring league at least in the beginning, basically starting training camp and Preseason after the Super Bowl and playing in major non NFL markets. Again a big reason why the USFL failed, was because they were in big NFL markets, like Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago etc.

The USFL can't do that again and need to go to places like, Orlando, Birmingham, Memphis, perhaps Columbus, Ohio, San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, perhaps San Jose or Sacramento. Major big cities like this that want pro football but don't have an NFL Franchise yet that would especially support a USFL franchise in the spring. And you take the players from the NFL or were overlooked by the NFL, that are simply not ready to play full-time in the NFL yet, thats how the USFl could succeed.

Invest Bliguru: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman-Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance

Source:The FreeState

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance. Because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that were designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them. Other than using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance. Having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have. Using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.

Calvin King: Ronald Reagan Warned Us About Barack Obama

Source:The FreeState

If you are ignorant and just downright so dishonest, that you'll say anything, to advance your cause and hurt people you see as opponents, or even enemies, you'll say whatever you can come up with and not let the facts get in the way of a good partisan attack. And perhaps you'll say so much that isn't true, that you'll start to believe your own nonsense. I use to believe that people who thought Barack Obama was a Socialist, or an African Atheist Muslim, how someone can both be an Atheist and a Muslim, someone needs to explain that to me, who was born in Kenya and is an Illegal Immigrant, who's President of the United States, I use to think these people were purely escaped mental patients. Who volunteered for the Michelle Bachmann presidential campaign.

I use to believe that people who said these things, were just straight up making this garbage up. Because they knew their followers, were ignorant enough to believe them. I mean you want to know why the American education system is in bad shape right now, all the evidence you need to see to believe that. Is with the people who actually believe this nonsense, I use to believe that the people who made these claims were simply fools, who don't know any better.

I'm sure there are plenty of those people making these charges, but they aren't the only ones. We simply still have a lot of ignorant people in this country. Who simply don't know any better, which is why they are ignorant, who make up these charges and believe them as well. And yes they are a fringe in America, but the fact is they all vote and all have loud voices in American politics. And powerful enough to get other ignorant Americans behind them.

But lets put some facts on the table just for the hell of it and maybe some ignorant people will learn something. Barack Obama born in Hawaii in August 1961, has a Hawaii birth certificate to show that. He's a practicing Christian who attends church on a regular basis. If he was a Socialist, he wouldn't of bailed out the banking and auto industries, he would've nationalized them. At least until they were ready to be independent again. And he wouldn't of cut taxes by over two-hundred-billion-dollars, but would've raised them by at least two-hundred-billion.

Americans can believe basically whatever the hell that they want to and don't have to pass an IQ test in order to do that. Which is a good thing for a lot of people who believe all of this garbage about Barack Obama and they can also say practically whatever they want to. As long as they aren't threatening to hurt people or incite violence and libeling people falsely. But again facts are facts and you can't argue with them, because once you do that, you are arguing against reality, trying to convince people of things that are simply false. Which is what a lot of the Far-Right is doing against Barack Obama in America.

Associated Press: NATO Protesters Target Boeing

Source:FRS FreeState 

Occupy Wall Street announced last week or a few weeks ago, that they were planning I guess what would be a spring offensive. And we've seen evidence of that already with their marches in Chicago this weekend, not just going after Wall Street, but now Boeing. They are mad as hell at corporate America and perhaps American capitalism all together and aren't going to take it anymore. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies.

It's not just Wall Street that they are pissed off at, but now corporate America as a whole and perhaps anyone who's wealthy and part of the 1% in America. That they don't see as progressive, but my question is what do they expect to get out off all of this other than venting on American capitalism. Do they believe any of the marches where their members get arrested for holding up traffic and disturbing the peace, do you think that comes across well with anyone, who can make a difference. And what they are trying to accomplish, putting a freeze on American capitalism, in order to buy time for them to install whatever they want to replace it with in the future. 

Leftists lets say, people who are further left than FDR Progressives and JFK liberal New Democrats, like to complain and bitch. And a lot of times only seem happier, or not as depressed when they have something to bitch about. There is a term for people like this and Democrats like this that was popular in the 1980s. Doom and Gloom or Doom and Gloomers, people who can only see the empty part of any glass that is not completely full that they try to drink out of. That is what OWS looks like to me. Mental patients that are never happy, always depressed and don't want to go home.

Then Candidate Obama when he was still a U.S. Senator and running for President in 2008, early went for lets say New-Left or even Far-Left McGovernite Democrats for their support. Which might make up the majority of OWS, to go along with some Progressives and perhaps Libertarians who are pissed off as crony capitalism, but aren't on board with what Socialists would replace it with. Because then Senator Obama believed that would be the easiest way to the Democratic nomination and to overcome Hillary Clinton, who had the backing of the Democratic Leadership. 

But after Candidate Obama secured the Democratic nomination, quickly pivoted to the center and ran as a center-left Liberal or Progressive Democrat in the general election. Like the smart or even slick politician that he is, get Far-Left on board to win the presidential nomination. And then run to the middle so you don't look crazy yourself and can appeal to Independents. And its pretty obvious he didn't want to be seen as closely linked to the Far-Left in the Democratic Party who look like nuts or aliens from another planet frankly to Independents as well as Democrats such as myself. 

People who live on communes, share a bedroom and perhaps even a bed with complete stranger so everyone has a place to stay and don't fit in with the country. I have no problem with people being different, hell I'm pretty different myself. But it's another thing to look like, or even be serious  about trying to take down something thats worked very well in this country. Which is private enterprise and education so people have what they need to do well in that economic system.

One thing that OWS is against, a lot of people actually agree with them, which is crony capitalism. But only a fringe of the country wants to replace American capitalism, with democratic socialism. We don't want to as a country, take apart companies that are very profitable and have produced a lot of good in this country, or nationalize private companies as well. And because of this OWS is just speaking amongst themselves and looking nutty compared with the rest of the country.

Barack Obama: Mitt Romney- I Stand by What I Said Whatever it Was

Source:The Daily Press

This is the number one problem that Mitt Romney has going for him, that he’s a multiple personality presidential candidate. That if his real name was Flip Flopper, no one who knows who he is or has some idea who he is, would have no problem believing that. The line “I stand behind what I said, whatever it was”, could be Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan. Standing behind something you said and not even knowing what you said.

That would be like saying something in a bar when you were drunk and you can’t even remember anything from that night. And you said a bunch of things and someone who was at the bar, holds you to that statement and you tell them, “well I stand behind that. Even though I have no memory of actually saying that.” President Obama has a problem, but I guess it’s a good problem, which Mitt Romney does he run against and he’ll see more than one in this presidential campaign. Does he run against Liberal Mitt from 1994, Moderate Mitt from 2002, Religious-Conservative Mitt from 2007-08, Neoconservative Mitt from this years Republican primaries, or whatever Mitt decides to run for President in the general election.

President Obama, could say. “I kinda like the Mitt from 2002-04, the successful businessman, big believer in economic freedom. Liberal and tolerant on social issues.” Which is how Northeastern Republicans tend to be, but he could also use that Mitt against whatever Mitt we see in 2012. And he could tell Mitt, “you know I kinda like that guy from 1994 and 2002, whatever happened to that guy?” Independent voters would like that Mitt as well. And Mitt if he answered the question honestly, which is about as likely as Pat Robertson coming out for same-sex marriage, would say, “oh that Mitt is still there, I just keep him hidden, when I’m around Neoconservatives, who hate that Mitt and see him as an Un-American Socialist.”

Imagine that a successful businessman whose a Socialist, that’s today’s Republican Party for you. Please someone bring back Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan. Those guys seem completely reasonable to today’s GOP. I’ve said this for over a year now, the best thing that President Obama has going for him, is his competition or lack of it. With enemies like this, who needs friends, they would be the best members all of them, of the Obama Reelection Committee. Working for the President behind the backs of the GOP. Like Democratic espionage agents, screwing the GOP. And Mitt Romney is the Leader of this pack.

CATO Institute: Video: George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner

Source:The Daily Post

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008, a future blog about that coming up, that, "there's a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP." And that the "Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP." Thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute and others ,. He's mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently . And would put it this way, that there's a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not Statist in any sense and there's a Statist Wing in the Republican Party. People who are Neoconservatives, who now make up the Christian Right, Tea Party and people who don't identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today. Made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize. Religious Freedom for Christians, they want Big Government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms. To tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV and what we can listen to. What bars and clubs we can go to etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Neoconservative Wing of the Republican Party is winning in the GOP. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn't want America to become a one-party State, which is most of us.

Because as we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal and Libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that. But as the changes are happening, we have Neoconservatives who are still stuck in the 1950s. Haven't figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don't want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don't fit in with the establishment, that we are all individuals and don't fit into the neoconservative box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don't fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box. That somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the GOP in the sense of the two wings that make up today's GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative which is different. And a Social Conservative Wing, that I would call Statist. That are Neoconservative Republicans and are unfortunately for the GOP, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the GOP and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

Malcolm X Network: Malcolm X: You're Afraid to Bleed

Source:FRS FreeState

All Americans have the constitutional right to defend themselves to the point that they stop that threat. Doesn’t mean they have the constitutional right to kill someone exactly. But to stop the threat that’s opposing them. Which is what I would like to believe is the message that Malcolm X was trying to convey to African-Americans. But I know better than that and he was trying to tell them to take it a step farther. When racist law enforcement were abusing African-Americans for protesting, even peacefully. He wanted the people to physically fight back, even if that meant getting a big beating and ending up in jail. Where Martin L. King was saying, “don’t fight back physically. We have just as much of a constitutional right to free speech and assembly. We are more than within our rights here. And if we are attacked, it’s the racist law enforcement that’s breaking the law. And should be arrested and filling the jail cells of the peaceful civil rights protesters. Not the protesters themselves.”

Martin King’s message, was more about unity, not just uniting African-Americans. But the country as a whole, to bring non African-Americans into the movement, to make it look like a mainstream movement that it became, where you saw all the civil rights legislation that was passed in the 1960s, so the civil rights movement couldn’t be portrayed, “as a bunch of unhappy Negro’s, looking for special rights and are people who are un-American and need to be stopped.” Similar, but different in a way that gay Americans are being debated against today as well. Even though I don’t see both movements as equal, but both important. I see people fighting for civil rights, so they aren’t discriminated based on their race, ethnicity, or gender as more important than people being discriminated based on their sexuality. But that’s something worth debating about, I’ve had this debate between a friend of mine who’s gay.

Malcolm X’s main contribution to the civil rights movement, at least as I see it, was advocating for self-reliance and freedom for African-Americans. So they can live their own lives in freedom and not be harassed by government. And not have to live off of public assistance and be trapped in poverty. He would’ve made a hell of a Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat today. And based on these notions, I actually have more respect for him than Dr. King. Because of what he was trying to accomplish for African-Americans, was long-term. Which is to empower them to get out of poverty.

Malcolm X Network: An American Nightmare (1964)

Source:FRS FreeState

What Malcolm X was laying out in this speech, was what Africans-Americans have gone through since they were given their freedom and no longer slaves. And what they’ve gone through, since being free as slaves. All the racial discrimination that followed them, since being free. He was also telling African-Americans, not to fall in love with the Democratic Party. Which was a very important message especially in the 1960s. When the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party, had so much power in Congress. The so-called Dixiecrats, that could kill legislation on their own. To the point had it not have been for Congressional Republicans, classical Conservatives in that party, the civil rights bills of 1964, 65 and 68 do not get past. Because the Southern Caucus would’ve blocked them. Dixiecrats, today are now Southern Republicans, religious and Neoconservative Republicans. So he was telling his community, don’t fall in love with the Democratic Party. Because they haven’t done a hell of a lot for you.

Malcolm X’s, message about not falling in love with one party. Was not only very important back in the 1960s, but probably just as important today. Because once you put all of your eggs in one basket so to speak, you can be taken advantage of. Because the party can take the attitude, “why do we have to respond to their concerns. Why do we even have to listen to them, where do they have to go without us. Are they going to become Republicans, a party that’s lost the African-American vote overwhelmingly the last twenty years or so. It’s really President Reagan, who was the last Republican President, that could win any substantial votes in this community, with his two landslide victories in 1980 and 84. The problem with the Republicans Party, is that they’ve become the Dixiecrats and haven’t given the African-Americans much incentive to vote for them since the 1960s.

African-Americans like any other community needs to have choices in who to vote for. The Democratic Party now monopolizes this community because they’ve reached out to them. And we now finally have an African-American President. But Africans Americans tend to be somewhat Conservative on Social Issues, especially in the South. And believe in things like Small Business and being Self Reliant. Not being forced to live off of Public Assistance. And the GOP hasn’t done much to take advantage of that and believe to their loss.

Invest Bliguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave

Source:The FreeState

When Libertarian professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Libertarian and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.

The Onion: Minnesota Braces For The Return of Michele Bachmann

Source:The Daily Press

The State of Minnesota has had five months to recover from the return of Representative Michelle Bachmann, who thank God doesn’t represent the whole state, only 600K or so Minnesotans have to put up with her. And a lot of those people are mental patients, which is Representative Bachmann’s base of support, being that she’s one of them, just on the lam. You would think that she would be easy to track down, seeing that she’s a U.S. Representative who works in Congress. But that’s perhaps a different story.

I thought I would give a status report on the damage that Representative Bachmann has caused. Report what’s she been saying and then report on what’s actually been happening. This week she endorsed Mitt Romney for President and within five minutes of that, Governor Romney’s polls with Independents plummeted and he lost ten points. The Flip Flopper in Chief, managed to bring those numbers back by supporting a constitutional amendment to make same-sex Marriage the law of the land. Which won him support with the homosexual community, something that only Mitt Romney can do. Being that he has a clones of himself.

In other news Representative Bachmann announced that there isn’t a Republican War on Women. Five minutes later she came out for a law that would ban women from the workforce. Her husband Marcus Bachmann also came out of the closet and supports Governor Romney’s constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage the law of the land as well. He also endorsed Mitt, but endorsed his clone Mitt, the liberal Mitt by accident. So the liberal Mitt picked up points in the homosexual community as well. Which doesn’t do much good for the real Mitt, whoever that person is.

The real Mitt is MIA and there’s an all points bulletin now to try to track down the real Mitt. Officials believe they know what the real Mitt looks like. They’ve seen pictures of him and have talked to Mitt’s other clones. Neoconservative Mitt, Moderate Mitt and Conservative Mitt. But have been unable to track down the real Mitt so far. So the week in what didn’t happen, this time not from Fox News, Fox News is currently on vacation, actually in court. Dealing with libel lawsuits filed against them by Democrats. But announced they’ll be back next week reporting everything that didn’t happen next week. Including a special report from Sean Hannity, on the Democratic War on Memorial Day. Honoring the service of our servicemen and women.

The Onion: Andrea Barret & Piper Cahill- 'Mitt Romney: To Travel Back in Time to Kill Liberal Versions of Himself'

Source:The Onion- A Mitt Romney 2012 campaign rally.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Seeking to dispel accusations of flip-flopping, Romney unveiled plans to use a time machine to kill earlier versions of himself who believed in universal health care and gay rights." 

From The Onion

Imagine if Mitt Romney could travel back in time to change more liberal positions he use to have, that me as a Liberal respect. Like when he supported civil unions for same-sex couples just six years ago. Just one position that has pissed off the Christian Right when he was Governor of the Democratic State of Massachusetts. Or back in 1994 and I’m guessing even before that, when he was running for U.S. Senate against Senator Ted Kennedy. Being pro-choice on abortion, or back in 2005-06, signing the twin brother or sister of the Affordable Care Act. Better known as ObamaCare.

But telling the difference between ObamaCare” and RomneyCare, is like telling the difference between the Olsen twins, seeing them for the first time. Or better yet imagine if Mitt could clone himself, when he’s running in Massachusetts. He’s the Liberal Mitt, when he’s running for president in a Christian-Conservative GOP. He’s a more Conservative Mitt, but not far enough for the Far Right. That he scares off independent voters, which is where he is right now.

If Mitt could clone himself, he would be the perfect unbeatable politician: Liberal on social issues, conservative on economic policy. Keeps your taxes and spending down, somewhere in between depending on if he listens to himself, or his clone. On foreign policy, he would be exactly where independent voters are. The Christian-Right, would hate him because he’s not trying to tell Americans how to live their lives. Socialists would hate him because he’s not spending every dollar Uncle Sam takes in, or increasing taxes on everyone. But if this were 1988 or 1980, the Romney Campaign wouldn’t even have to consider creating a time machine, or cloning Mitt. Because this is where the Republican Party use to be politically.

The GOP, so much liberal or classically conservative on social issues, pre-Christian-Right, but took the attitude that government shouldn’t be telling Americans how to live their lives. Which is actually conservative politics as well. Could the time machine be Mitt Romney’s secret weapon to winning the presidential election? What happens after he’s nominated by the GOP and sees independent voters that liked his liberal positions on social Issues? Wait! It’s a time machine, so he would be able to go back in time and delete his ass-kissing of Christian-Right Voters in the Republican primaries. A time machine would be a hell of a secret weapon, if only it existed. The problem is Mitt is stuck with whoever he is. At times its hard to tell with his flip-flopping. I’m not sure even he knows who he is at this point. 

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman- What's Wrong With Our Schools

Source:The FreeState

Libertarian economist Milton Friedman made a documentary about the country. The society, covering the economy and several different aspects in the economy. Which education is definitely part of it, he made this film 1979-1980. When America still had a pretty good education system, up until twenty years ago. We still had a decent education system. Now we are ranked 39th in the world according to the United Nations and World Bank. International organizations that Progressives tend to trust now and then.

The level of education that students get, a lot of times is based on the economic level of their parents. and where they live. If you live in a wealthy area, or a middle class area, chances are you're going to get a pretty good education. The suburbs in the Washington area, are an excellent example of this. There are excellent schools in Washington as well, which is one of the wealthiest cities and areas in the country. A big wealthy city, but a city that also have some bad schools with a lot of low-performing students and educators. And the students who live there, get stuck going to bad schools. Just because of where they live.

So the two main things we need in education reform, is choice and accountability. Allow all parents no matter their economic level, or where they live, send their kids to the best school thats for their kids. Instead of having to send them to a school, whether its a good school, or not. And this would force all schools to do a good job and perform the best service possible for their students. Or risk losing their students to other schools. And the other thing which is just important as choice, is accountability.

Judging students and educators based on the jobs that they do. Pay and reward educators for their quality of service, not time of service. Which is different and only promote students to the next grade that are ready to go to the next grade. Don't promote them, because you are worried about hurting their feelings if you hold them back. I don't support a voucher system for schools, at least not from the Federal level. Whatever the Federal Government spends on schools and I believe it should be pretty limited, should be targeted to our public schools. In order to make them as good as possible. But we do need choice in our public schools. Instead of parents being forced to send their kids to the public school, just because of where they live.

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?

Source:The FreeState

As much as Progressives may claim there is, there’s no such thing as a Socialist Utopia in the world, there people living in poverty all over the world. Just as there are people living in abundance all over the world as well. The term that all men are created equal, goes to all races and ethnicities. That everyone should be treated equally under law, that no one should be treated better or worse based on their race, or ethnicity, under law. But that doesn’t mean that we get equal amounts of the resources that are produced in the world. What we get out of life, is what we put into it, in most cases. America, is a perfect example of this. That if we have good skills, we get a good education and then we apply what we learn and our skills, that we are going to be very successful in life. And that the people who don’t have these skills, or don’t apply their skills, they underachieve, then they aren’t going to get much out of life. And end up living in poverty or end up in the criminal justice system.

So what we need to do as a society, is create or go back to an economic system that empowers all Americans, to have a good opportunity to be successful in life. Have a system of equality of opportunity, or an opportunity society where we all have a good shot of being successful in life. Which is different from equality of result. Where the state collects all the resources and then divides them up based on what they feel the people need to survive. That would be a socialist system, with a heavy welfare state. Where the people would be dependent on the state for their survival. Even if they have the skills and are productive to take care of themselves.

We can do much better than creating a collective state, or a superstate and allow everyone the opportunity to be successful in life on their own and not be dependent on the state. And we can even have a system that empowers people who fall through the cracks to be able to get up and take care of themselves. We are not all equal as far as what we produce and create for society and ourselves. Some people are just more productive than others for whatever reasons. And should be rewarded for that. But we do need a system that empowers everyone to be productive. So we can have less income inequality, but we’ll never eliminate it, as long as we have Americans who are more productive than others.

VOA News: Henry Ridgewell: Greek Leftists Seek Coalition, Reject EU Austerity

Source:FRS FreeState

With Socialists making a comeback in France, Greek Socialists now see an opportunity to throw their wait around in Greece. A country, thats buried in debt, making the American debt look like peanuts. Thats in the process of being bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. Which is being led by Germany right now that has a Conservative led government. If Greece makes strict austerity measures, the Hellenic Republic of Greece, is essentially a Socialist State, where their welfare state is very popular, so making steep cuts in their welfare state, is not very popular. As their current government is finding out and as we've seen from the protests there.

And why Greece is headed for new Parliamentary elections. To hopefully for them, to form a new government. That can get its economy going again and get its debt and deficit under control. The main two political parties in Greece, are the Socialist Party of course and the New Republic Party. Which would be like the Conservative Party in Britain. The Socialists obviously being against austerity and the Republicans will try to push it. If the Greeks don't want to have to accept the demands of the European Union in resolving its debt and fixing its economy, as condition of receiving a bail out from European taxpayers, then they should fix their own problems. Resolve its own crisis.

And the Greek people should make a decision. Do they want the Socialists, or the Republicans to do this and give them the power to do it. But I don't see the European Union, even with the Socialists now in power in France, the 2nd largest State in the EU, continuing to give money to a country that continues to spend their money without serious reforms. If they don't want to meet the demands of the EU, especially being run by Conservatives, they should elect a Socialist Government to resolve their own problems. Otherwise elect a Conservative Government and meet the demands of the EU, or negotiate new conditions.

What Greece is going through right now, is similar to what America is going through. Where the countries are divided down the line. And doesn't like either party enough, to give them enough power to run the country. So they shift back in fourth. In America, between Democrats and Republicans. In Greece between Republicans and Socialists. And only the people of these countries can figure these things out for themselves.

Reagan Foundation: A Reagan Forum With Dennis Prager

Source:The FreeState

Dennis Prager, a right-wing radio talk show host, is right about one thing. The right-wing and the Republican Party has forgotten about Ronald Reagan and what Reagan conservatism actually is and what it means. President Reagan left the White House in January, 1989 just twenty-two years ago. And today probably wouldn't recognize the Republican Party today. I'm not a mind-reader, but I'm just basing that on where he was politically when he left the White House. And where the GOP is today, remember what Ron Reagan said.

"Government isn't the solution, but the problem." But yet you had two Republican presidential candidates in 2011 come out in favor of constitutional amendments to ban pornography and same-sex marriage. Actually looking to expand Federal Governmental power in Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum, saying "why do we need fifty marriage laws? We should just have one standard." Which is the argument that today's Progressives make when they are talking about more Federal power in education. "Education is a national Issue, we don't need fifty different standards when it comes to education."

I'm a Liberal Democrat, so obviously I don't agree with President Reagan on everything. And I'm not an expert on President Reagan either. But his message was pretty clear and simple. "Big government is the problem and we don't have enough individual liberty." His message wasn't just about economic freedom or religious freedom or political freedom. But his message was about individual freedom. That people should be free to live their own lives. Religious and Neoconservatives today, who call President Reagan a Liberal, except on economic and foreign policy, take a different approach to politics.

"That individual freedom is a threat to national security." Or as Michelle Bachmann said, "same-sex marriage is the number one threat to our national security". If people have a lot of individual freedom, they may do things that people don't like and wouldn't do. And would become threats to our national security, according to today's Neoconservatives. Or as Rick Santorum put it, "our national morality." The Reagan Foundation and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, is what Republicans and people who claim be Conservatives today should be looking at and studying. Ron Reagan considered himself a Libertarian as late of 1975. He was elected President in 1980. Libertarians people that Religious and Neoconservatives consider to be immoral or Un-American. Because they believe in freedom and are individualist, not collectivist.