Ron Paul: How to Sell Liberty (1990)

Source:Real Life Journal

You convince people they are more qualified to make their decisions than government. When you have an educated society and not just an educated class, but a society where most of the country is educated and has the tools to manage their own affairs then you won’t need a big government, or any government trying to manage the people’s affairs for them. Because the people will know how to do these things for themselves. Both from a personal and economic perspective. The biggest threat to big government and statism and what big government supporters should worry about the most is not individual freedom. Individual freedom and limited government are the alternatives to big government. The biggest threat to big government and statism is an educated society.

When people have the tools which is education to manage their own affairs, then they’ll know what to do and what not to do with their own lives. They’ll know not to attack innocent people, because they’ll know that is wrong. They’ll know where to work, because they’ll know what they’re qualified to do and what the pay and benefits comes from the jobs they are qualified for. They’ll know where to live and what is the best place for them, because they’ll know what they can afford and what would be the best community for them. They’ll know where to get their health insurance, what to eat and drink and how much they can handle of those things. How to plan their own retirements, where to send their kids to school. Whether they should smoke, or drink, including marijuana. And who they should sleep and live with and when if ever they should marry their romance partner.

Statists, especially nanny statists both on the Far-Left and Far-Right generally view people as stupid. And not able to manage their own affairs and see freedom as the freedom to make mistakes. Which is why they believe in statism whether its Marxism, or some type of religious theocracy. Which again is why education is the biggest threat to big government. And why statists can’t afford an educated society, because then they won’t have the support for their big government philosophy. So you educate the society and make quality education universal for everyone including low-income children and you’ll have a society that believe in liberty, because they’ll know how to manage their own affairs for themselves.

Libertarian Party: The Libertarian Party's 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Source:Real Life Journal

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party. The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today. Because there isn't a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren't purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right, Neoconservatives and even Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left, Far-Left really. A combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don't seem to believe in it. The whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I'm not a Libertarian even though I'm completely against big government myself. But whether you're a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don't have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party. The believe in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don't just speak about aspects of it that they like as they're trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don't like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

EFAN 2011: Richard Nixon's 1968 GOP Presidential Acceptance Speech: The Silent Majority

Source:The FreeState

The 1960s was actually a pretty good time for America even though we were very divided as a country over Vietnam, civil rights and the Great Society. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 which outlawed racial discrimination under law in the United States. The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Which meant no longer would be people be denied their right to vote based on their race. The Fair Housing Law was passed in 1968. Which meant no longer would people be allowed to deny other people housing based on race. Medicare was passed in 1965, which meant seniors would always have guaranteed health insurance in America.

The economy boomed in that decade. The Federal Government was actually able to balanced its budget during this decade. But this was also one of the most turbulent and divisive decades we've ever had in America. Four political leaders were assassinated in this decade. President Kennedy, Malcolm X, Rev. Dr. Martin L. King and of course Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968. King and Kennedy in 68, within two months, April and June. Hundreds of thousands of Americans dying or injured in the Vietnam War, the South moving from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican in 1968.

Richard Nixon understood the mood of America about as well as any politician we've ever produced. And understood where the country was and where they were going and how he could fit in that into his politics. As far as what he believed and what he wanted to accomplish. And he could make that work politically for him and the Republican Party. This whole speech is a perfect example of that, where he says, ;that a country thats run by the rule of law, has lawlessness throughout the country.' He's talking about the riots in our big cities like Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles and others.

'When the a country with the greatest military in the world gets bogged down in a civil war in a third world country.' He's talking about the Vietnam War. 'When these things happen its time for a change in leadership in the greatest country in the world.' Meaning the United States. Dick Nixon was laying out where the country was, all the divisiveness that the country was going through. And what wasn't working in the country and saying its time for a change in leadership in America. And saying he's the one meaning who will bring that new leadership that will move America forward.

WEWS-TV News: Dr. Martin Luther King in Cleveland, Ohio in 1967

Source:Free State MD

I wanted to write a blog about Dr. Martin Luther King’s Poor People’s Campaign that he launched in 1967-68. A few years after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 65 respectfully were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. But I couldn’t find footage of that campaign that was more than a couple of minutes long. But the video I did find is still pretty good. Dr. King, understood as a freedom fighter, that he was someone who fights for freedom, not the other way around.

That of course it was important that all Americans be treated equally under law for all of us to live in freedom. But for America to be a real liberal democracy, we had to do something about poverty in America. That at the time of the late 1960s, was around 25%, perhaps twice that much for African-Americans. And that these people no matter their race to truly to live in freedom, they had to have economic freedom as well. The ability to support themselves. And not forced to live off of public assistance and be forced to live in rundown ghettos, or be forced to live in rundown shacks in rural America. But be able to have a quality of life-like the rest of the country and be able to live in security.

The Poor People’s Campaign, or as I would call it the Campaign Against Poverty, was the next phase of the civil rights movement. They already established the Civil Rights Act, that no American would be allowed to be discriminated against based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. The Voting Rights Act, establishing that no American would be allowed to be denied the right to vote based on race, ethnicity, or gender. But after that was a movement to fight poverty in America. To first bring awareness to the problem, “this what we face as a country” and then hopefully come up with steps to address the issues of poverty.

They didn’t get to this part, MLK died in April, 1968. But this would’ve been the next phase of the civil rights movement. To go along with furthering non-violence, taking on the Vietnam War and perhaps fighting for human rights worldwide. This is just one example of why the assassination of Martin King was so tragic, especially at the age of 39. An early middle-age man if that. Because there was so much left for him to accomplish and work on and he simply just ran out of time because of an ignorant escaped prison inmate, who should’ve been rotting in a Missouri prison instead.

ABC Evening News: 1972 VP Drama: The George McGovern Convention

Source:The Daily Journal

George McGovern did a lot to bring in new voters to the Democratic Party. Reaching to African, Latin, Asian and Jewish Americans. As well as women and suburban voters, after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. With a large number of Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans heading to the GOP because of civil rights. And you could credit Senator McGovern with even saving the Democratic Party. Because without these new voters, all of these new people would’ve ended up Republicans, or not voting at all.

And we would’ve seen Republican Congress’s, not just a Republican Senate, but the GOP would’ve won back the House and Senate well before 1994. Perhaps even by 1980 with the Reagan Revolution, because the Democratic Party would’ve been left with a large hole to fill. With all of those Southern voters heading to the GOP, without other voters heading to the Democratic Party. So by bringing in all of these new voters to the Democratic Party, Senator McGovern deserves credit for saving the Democratic Party. From future losses in Congress and the White House after 1972.

Democrats added to their majorities in Congress in 1974. And they won back the White House while holding both the House and Senate in 1976. But the Democratic Party paid such a heavy price for it in 1972, yes President Nixon was pretty popular. But they were a very divided party between establishment Liberals who wanted a united party to face the Republicans in the fall and the anti-war New-Left Social Democrats. That wanted to take over the party and return it to where it was in the 1960s and build on the New Deal and Great Society. And George McGovern also deserves credit for running the most disorganize convention in the TV era.

Libertarian Party Conference (1980) Murray Bookchin & Karl Hess

Source:Real Life Journal

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. But instead said say, “that capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Left Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.

Reagan Foundation: Video: Ronald Reagan: A Time For a Choosing

Source:The FreeState

The so called Reagan Revolution of 1980, that brought Ronald Reagan to the presidency and thirty or so new House Republicans and the Senate Republicans winning control of the Senate for the first time since 1952, actually started in 1964 under Barry Goldwater. Ron Reagan just had the personality to sell American conservatism to the country and show Americans that it wasn't scary. It took really sixteen years for the Republican Party to control both the White House and at least one chamber of Congress. 

But all of these steps were put in place starting in 1964, when the message was put together. When Republicans started winning in the South consistently in 1966, a big reason Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968, won a landslide in 1972, because Southerners were becoming Republicans. The Democratic Party was losing its grasp on the South and hasn't gotten it back since. Congressional Republicans lost overwhelmingly in Congress in 1974, but a lot of that had to do with Watergate. 

Republicans lost again in at least partially due to Watergate 1976 and Ron Reagan ran for President in 1976. And came damn close to winning the Republican nomination from President Gerry Ford and kept this message of individual freedom and personal responsibility alive. The tax revolt of the late 1970s, especially in California, all of these things were part of the Goldwater/Reagan Revolution. Thanks to Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party was changing from a yes fiscally conservative socially moderate party. 

The GOP was mostly in the Northeast and Midwest and became a party that was able to communicate this message across the country and take this message to the South. The only thing with the South, is they brought in the Religious Right to go along with Republicans who are more libertarian than statist when it comes to social issues. But the GOP understood that they were simply too small and had to grow their base to compete with Democrats in the future. 

Arizona Public Media: America Experience The Presidents: Jimmy Carter The Man From Plains

Source:The Daily Press

Had it not have been for 1974 and the Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter doesn’t get elected President of the United States, at least in 1976. He probably runs for reelection for Governor of Georgia in 1974 and probably gets reelected and waits for 1980. And looks at his options then. Jimmy Carter, basically was in a time that was perfect for someone like him, after Watergate and President Nixon resigning in 1974. Americans were looking for decent honest person to lead the country.

Which is what President Gerry Ford was, but they were also looking for an outsider and a new voice that was not from Washington. Not a cabinet official, or someone in Congress, but a breath of fresh air, someone who wasn’t an elitist and someone who spoke their mind and could take the country on a different course. And perhaps end the gridlock in Washington and to a certain extent that’s what President Carter brought to Washington. He was able to pass a lot of legislation out of Congress.

Yes President Carter, had a Democratic Congress with large majorities, including a 3-5 majority in the Senate his first two years. But he was also able to get a lot of Congressional Republicans to vote for his legislation, because he worked with the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate. He probably actually had more Republican allies in Congress, than Democratic allies. He had problems with Congressional Democrats.

Former Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole who was in Congress during the Carter Administration, once said that Jimmy Carter was the smartest President he had ever served with, which might be true. But great intelligence and knowledge is a great thing to have as President, but you also have to have a political feel as a politician. You have to know what you want to do, where you want to take the country and how far you can take it, based on the political situation and what’s possible.

Which is something that President Carter didn’t have unlike President’s Reagan and Clinton and wasn’t sure how to communicate a message that he could get Americans to rally behind. And move Americans to get their Senators and Representatives behind him. He also had a Democratic Congress to deal with that was run by New Deal/Great Society Progressive/New Left Democrats, that since there was a Democratic President, automatically felt that it was time to move back to days of the Great Society and big government progressivism. And that wasn’t the type of Democrat that Jimmy Carter was.

President Carter, was ahead of his time in the Democratic Party in this sense. That he understood the limits of the Federal Government. And that there was only so much that it could do on its own to solve the nation’s problems and that it was time for a different approach. And even though his political feel wasn’t that good, he understood that by the late 1970s, that America had moved past the Progressive Era. And that Americans were ready for a different approach. Which also caused him problems with Congressional Democrats. So Jimmy Carter, ended up being a President with few allies in Washington, which made his job even more difficult.

The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand 1959 Full Interview

Source:Real Life Journal

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard. Because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft. Which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians including Presidents and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview. But he could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

People like columnists and other writers like authors. People who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things. Professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known. So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the Progressive in doing this interview. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate. Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, but questioning her philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali & George Foreman On British TV

Source:Real Life Journal

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat. And George beat him twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ayn Rand (1967)

Source:Real Life Journal

Johnny Carson, was accustomed to entertaining people. Doing skit comedy, standup comedy and interviewing other entertainers. And I’m not saying that Johnny Carson was an ignorant or uneducated man, the opposite was true and he was interested in politics and current affairs. And made fun of people in this business as part of his act. But he was accustomed to interviewing entertainers, not intellectuals like Ayn Rand. Johnny, was accustomed to interviewing people who entertained others for a living, rather than interviewing people who get paid to educate people about philosophy and history.

So when Johnny interviewed Ayn Rand in 1967 on his show, it was a step up for him and probably something he had to do a serious amount of prep work to prepare for. Like reading Ayn Rand’s books and reading articles about her, checking out any news footage about her as well. Ayn Rand, wasn’t someone who was very commonly known in Hollywood to put it mildly. The intellectuals they were familiar with, already held office and were politicians. Rather than people on the outside looking in, perhaps trying to build a counter-movement, which is what Ayn Rand was doing to a certain extent.

Ayn Rand’s, philosophy of objectivism that Libertarians today use as an inspiration for their movement, was about individual freedom. That people should look after themselves first and only after individuals are strong, than we can help others that are weak. Which I’m sure sounds selfish to Progressives who have a collectivist look at politics and life. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy in the 1960s, even in the late 60s like in 1967 when this interview was done, was not considered popular. Progressivism, especially when it came to the economy, was still the dominant political philosophy in the United States at this point.

And what Ayn Rand was preaching was the opposite of collectivism. That and I’m guessing most of the people in Johnny Carson’s audience were more Progressive than Libertarian. And that Ayn, was in a small minority compared with the rest of this crowd. So she was speaking to an unfriendly audience politically. Ayn, wasn’t the first or last politician, or philosopher that Johnny Carson interviewed. He interviewed Ron Reagan, Dick Nixon I believe, Gerry Ford, I believe Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and many others. But none of them were like Ayn Rand. Someone not only willing to believe in a philosophy, that wasn’t politically popular yet, but perhaps not even commonly known. And I give Johnny credit for that.

Lifetime: Jessica Savitch Intimate Portrait: The Queen of Nightly News

Source:The Daily Press

Jessica Savitch before she tragically died in 1983, was the weekend anchor of NBC Nightly News. Only behind Tom Brokaw at NBC News as far as their anchors and when she died was considered the most trusted news anchor in America. Essentially replacing Walter Cronkite with that title. She was both gorgeous and adorable, but very intelligent and worked very hard at her craft. A true news junky, which is what you almost have to be to be a successful news anchor, as well as a political junky. All traits I love as someone who shares these same traits and she picked up these traits very early on in life, as being the daughter of a news and political junky her father, who she was very close with.

I wasn't born until 1975 so almost everything I've seen from her have been old news footage of her, actually a lot of it on YouTube. And she became a star in network news by the late 1970s, a very turbulent time in America. With an energy shortage, a weak economy, with high interest, inflation and unemployment rates, the Jonestown tragedy in 1978, the Iran Hostage Crisis. America seeming to be in decline by the summer of 1979 and Jessica Savitch was covering all of these stories.

Jessica Savitch was ahead of her time, because she made it to the top, or very close to it by the late 1970s. When network news was still dominated by men and when women were still coming up in this business and had she not died in 1983 tragically, maybe she's the lead anchor of one of the network newscasts for 15-20 years. Like Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, or Dan Rather. She was too big and too good to the weekend anchor indefinitely and could've gone a lot further, if she just had the time to do it.

Rumor in Town: MLB 1939-World Series-Cincinnati Reds @ New York Yankees

Source:The Daily Journal

I think Yankee Stadium was a great place for baseball, but I’m not sure it was a great ballpark. And what do I mean by that? That when I think of ballparks I think of places that primarily for baseball and were designed primarily for baseball. To the point that if you tried to play another sport there the park would look funny because of how the seats would have to be rearranged for football are soccer to be played there. And that sight lines would look funny as well. I think of Fenway Park as the example of a great ballpark. Wrigley Field would be another one and modern ballparks like Oriole Park Jacobs Field would great modern ballparks.

Yankee Stadium was a great place for baseball, but it was a stadium a very big one at that. At one point it seated something like seventy-thousand for baseball and like eighty-thousand for football. Yankee Stadium was a multi-purpose stadium and one of the few good if not great multipurpose stadiums that were ever built. Baltimore Memorial Stadium would be another one and Tiger Stadium in Detroit would be another one as well. And Yankee Stadium the old one at least was certainly a great baseball castle, but I wouldn’t put it down as a great ballpark, because it was a multipurpose stadium instead.

The Boxing History: Legendary Nights: George Foreman vs. Michael Moorer

Source:Real Life Journal

This a fight that Mike Moorer would like to have back. This fight reminds me a little of George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1974. Where Muhammad, waited for Big George, to punch himself out while landing enough punches in the fight to stay ahead. But essentially let Foreman land his punches thinking he wasn't built to last and would punch himself out. And that is when Ali went to work on him and knocked him down for the ten count. This was a little different where Big George, lost almost all the rounds if not all of them and did enough to buy himself time to capitalize on a mistake from Moorer, which is where he hit him with a 1-2 and knocked him out.

Big George, is 45 at this point and in his eighth of his famous comeback looking to win back the world championship. Weighing in at 255-260 pounds and slow, but still having devastating power and the ability to take great punches. Mike Mooere, 26 at this point and should have been in this prime and was prepared at least physically to hold on the title for a long time. He beat Evander Holyfield for the championship in 1993. He was 6'2, 215-220 pounds, real quick and real powerful. But perhaps a bit overconfident lacking the work-ethic needed to stay as a world champion. Not that different from Riddick Bowe, or Buster Douglas.

So going into this fight this almost looked like a mismatch. People thinking that Moorer, would pound Foreman the whole fight and be able to avoid Foreman's big jab and win most if not all the rounds. Either wear Foreman out, or win with a landslide decision. But the cliche always has a punchers chance, was never more correct than in this fight. George Foreman, in every fight he ever fought was always 1-2 punches away from winning. Because he could knock anyone out in 1-2 punches. Or nail you so hard with one punch and then pound you with several big blows after that would take you out. Big George, caught Moorer with one of his huge jabs and then decked him with a punch that Moorer didn't see. And that is how he won the World Heavyweight Championship. Where he trailed the whole fight.

Richard Nixon Foundation: President Richard Nixon's 1974 State of The Union Speech

Source:The FreeState

President Nixon's 1974 State of The Union sounds to me more like a closing argument. That he was trying to make to the American people in why he should remain President and not be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, essentially fired by Congress. By telling Americans where the country was when he gave his first State of The Union address in 1969 and where the country was five years later. And what he would wanted to do as President if he were allowed to remain as President. It was the old don't give up or surrender until you've thrown all of your punches and have shot all of your bullets approach.

But I think as smart as a politician as Richard Nixon was, he probably knew that his days as President were numbered, even though he still had things on his agenda that he wanted to accomplish, At this point he still had three years to go on his 2nd term and still had health care reform, what later became known as Welfare to Work, energy independence and negotiating a peace deal between Israel and Egypt that actually started under the Nixon Administration in the early 1970s. But with all of the evidence that was about to come out as it related to the Watergate scandal, that was not going to happen.

President Nixon was trying to make the case that now its not the time to remove the President, with all of that he's accomplished. And everything that he still wanted to accomplish for the country. That instead we should come together as a country and get together to finish the work of the country, instead of firing the current President and once again starting over and trying again. But that was not going to happen. By early 74, the President was fighting not just Congress, but now the U.S. Supreme Court. That ordered him to give up tapes that proved his involvement in the Watergate coverup. So his days as President were certainly numbered at this point.

Emmanuel Goldstein: The Open Mind With Richard Hefner: Dr. Martin Luther King

Source:The Daily Journal

Liberal democracy, worked pretty well in America except for African-Americans and perhaps other racial minorities. Which is why the civil rights movement was so important and Reverend Martin L. King comes along in the 1950s part of the civil rights generation that he in large part created. And concluded that for America to be a true liberal democracy, that all Americans should have their liberty and not just a special few. That liberal democracy had to work for all of us, not some of us, or we weren’t a real liberal democracy.

As President Kennedy said, we would be a country that’s half free and half slave. With some Americans with the liberty to live up to their full-potential in life and get out of life what they put into it, with everyone else being dependent on what the special few gave us. And that forced segregation and racism was wrong and unacceptable and that this can’t be tolerated in a liberal democracy. And knew how to fight back against this and mobilized people who felt the same way. Dr. King’s political skills were also very good, he understood that not all Caucasian-Americans were racists and believed in forced segregation. He also knew that not all Southern Caucasians were racists either and reached out to those people a well.

Another thing that Dr. King understood that when of this interview in 1957, that African- Americans made up roughly 10% of the American population. And for his movement to ever get off the ground, let alone succeed, he was going to need the help of other Americans. Similar to the gay rights movement today. Which is why he reached out to Caucasians, Jews, Latinos and others, especially in the media, to get the message out. And did a lot of interviews in print and broadcast. To spread the movement of non-violence, peace and equal rights for all Americans and again not just for the special few.

Thats a big part along with their keen intelligence that made Dr. King and Malcolm X so special. They both really knew how to work the media to get their message out. This is also what made people like Richard Hefner so special like this, who understood the greatness of people before they were famous. Dr. King, understood the power of the media, especially the electronic media before a lot of other people did. Similar to Jack Kennedy and knew how to use it to get their message out and spread the word of what they were trying to say and be able to communicate. Not only to their followers, but also to bring in a lot of other new followers. And had a great message to get out and communicate to America.

HBO Sports: World Championship Boxing- 1982 World Heavyweight Championship- George Cooney vs Larry Holmes

Source:Real Life Journal

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. Didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. Reminds me a little to George Wepner. If he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. So this was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out

ABC Evening News: George McGovern & Ed Muskie 1972 Presidential Election

Source:The Daily Journal

The Democrats didn't have anyone who could beat Richard Nixon in 1972. They also didn't have a united party that could do that as well. One of the reasons why Senator George McGovern as leader of the party for that fall campaign reformed the rules for how delegates were assigned at conventions was to bring in more Americans to the party. The party was transitioning from a Southern based party with Northeastern ties to a party that by the 1980s was heavily dependent on the Northeast and West Coast to win. As well as big cities in the Midwest. Because Senator McGovern brought in African-Americans, Latinos, Jews and Asians to the party from these big cities in the country.

George McGovern whatever you think of his politics was a very bright man. And served South Dakota very well in Congress both in the House and later in the Senate. And I'm sure at the very least knew that even if he did win the Democratic nomination for president he had not an uphill  battle against President Nixon in the fall. But more like a swimmer trying to swim upstream with one arm, one leg and one eye. But what he did in 1972 as far as changing the voting rules in the party paid off really well for Democrats in 1976 with Jimmy Carter. And perhaps helped Democrats hold onto the House of Representatives for another 22 years after 72 with all of the new voters that came to the party. But 1972 was not a year that Democrats were prepared to win back the presidency. They were in transition and way too divided.

Morton Downey Show: Ron Paul (1988)

.

Source:Real Life Journal

Morton Downey Jr. who died from overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs. Here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well that is Washington speak for “drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization."

You want to know why marijuana is illegal in America? (Well I’ll tell you anyway) It is because they do not have the back pockets of enough Representatives and Senators in Congress. They haven’t bought off enough members of Congress to get their drug legalize. Besides alcohol and tobacco, soft drinks and junk food have already beat marijuana to the punch as far as getting their products legal and keeping them legal with very few regulations. While keeping marijuana illegal. What Representative Paul is saying is that legal drugs are the main problem in America when it comes to drugs. And locking people up for what they do to themselves is simply not working.

I'm not for legalizing all current illegal narcotics in America. I stop at legalization and regulation of marijuana, but then I would decriminalize the others simply because locking people up and sending them to prison for what they do to themselves. Which is has simply not worked as we now have over forty-years of evidence and experience to know. So I'm closer to Representative Ron Paul here than I'm with Mort Downey, who died for over consumption of a legal narcotic and that being tobacco. You get people to not make bad decisions with their own lives by showing them and convincing them why that would be wrong. Not by punishing people for what they do to themselves.

Basic Economics: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviewing Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton in 1999

Source:The FreeState

Milton Friedman, made the case that the economy deserves most of the credit for the economic boom of the 1990s. That it was really an economic expansion that started in 1983, when the economy broke out of the 1982-83 recession. But what he doesn’t mention is that was that we had a fairly bad recession in 1990-91 and we had mounting debt and deficits, that we were supposed to still be stuck with ten years later. President H.W. Bush, essentially inherited the recession of the early 1990s, with rising interest and inflation rates as well as unemployment. That he addressed in 1990 with the first of two deficit reduction acts. That included budget cuts, budget caps and tax hikes.

Which President Bush got killed for by right-wingers in the 1992 presidential election and one reason why he got a primary challenge from Pat Buchanan in 1992 as well. President Clinton, inherited a large debt and deficit in 1992, an economy that was growing, but barely, with low job growth, high inflation, interest and unemployment rates. And by the time President Clinton left office in 2001, the economy was booming, with 4.2% unemployment, a falling national debt and the first budget surplus since 1969. President Clinton, of course doesn’t deserve all the credit for this, but he did lay down policies that helped bring this about.

In 1993 alone, President Clinton got through Congress two foreign trade deals. NAFTA and GAT and a deficit reduction act, that had budget cuts and tax hikes on the wealthy. NAFTA and GAT allowed for more American products to be sold in Canada and Mexico, as well as more jobs in America to make those products. The Deficit Reduction Act helped to bring down interest and inflation rates, which lowered prices, so people had more money to spend. Which meant consumer spending went up, which led to higher economic and job growth.

The actual size of the Federal Government went down under President Clinton. Now the Republican Congress’s deserve some credit for that, but that process started under President Clinton during the Democratic Congress of 1993-94. It’s really the private sector that deserves credit for the economic boom of the 1990s. Business’s and workers, but President Clinton deserves credit as well. The economy did take off in the 1980s under President Reagan and the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.

But that the 1983 economic expansion lasted about six years from 1983-89. And the economy started to slide in 1989 and we had a recession in 1990-91. The 1990s was a different period, because information technology took off, creating millions of jobs in that decade. With all sorts of new tech companies, with the internet coming on-line in 1991 or 92, with cell phones becoming common at about this time as well.

ABC Evening News: A Few Days Before The 1972 Democratic Convention

Source:The Daily Journal

Here's a reason to watch ABC Now if you are a political junky. There was simply no way that the Democratic Party was going to win the 1972 presidential election. Even if you could get past the facts that President Richard Nixon was ending the Vietnam War, that his policies to talk to and work with Russia and China were paying off and that the American economy was still relatively healthy. But the state of the Democratic Party was the main issues for Democrats in 72. The emerging that I at least would call socialist New-Left that backed Senator George McGovern for president who went out his way to have this fringe political faction behind him. Combined with what was left of the Southern right-wing base in the party that backed Governor George Wallace. And the traditional New Deal/Great Society progressive coalition that was behind Senator Hubert Humphrey.

Democrats and Senator George McGovern were so desperate to get attention and support behind their campaign that they tried to make Watergate an issue in the summer and fall of 72. Even though most of the country hadn't even heard of the Watergate Hotel yet, let alone the burglary there. Landslides tend to happen at least at the presidential level when you have a fairly popular president which is what Richard Nixon was for most of 1972, with a large percentage of the country believing things are going well. Facing a divided opposition party like the Democratic Party in 72. That couldn't decide who their presidential nominee was going to be and which faction of the party would get it until they got to the convention itself. Opposition parties need to be united behind a leader in order to defeat the President of the United States. Which is not what the Democrats were in 72.

Tasty Peach Cobbler: Video: The Army-McCarthy Hearings Documentary

Source:The Daily Post

The West with the help of Russia wins World War II and agrees to give Europe the resources that it needs to rebuild themselves after Nazism and what Italian Fascists did to the continent. The West, America and Europe was now somewhat at peace. But in America and Europe you had this huge liberal democracy in America and all of these mid-size developing social democracies in Europe. Against this gigantic totalitarian Communist State in the Soviet Union in Russia. And the two dominant visions of the world because the Liberal Democratic America, versus Communist Russia.

And because of the emergence of the Cold War Americans especially those who perhaps very well-educated about communism became afraid if it. And were worried about communism taking over America and Communists running America. And that is where Senator Joe McCarthy and his allies and colleagues in Congress starting in the House in 1947 with the Un-American Activities Committee. And then in the Senate with Army-McCarthy hearings, emerge to look like they were stamping out Communists in the U.S. Government.

Senator Joe McCarthy becomes a political star very early on, especially as a junior Senator. He becomes Chairman of the Government Oversight Committee in the Senate in 1953 after Republicans win back Congress again. After only being in the Senate for five years. But his political skills at least early on and his power as a speaker gave him a following to move up quickly and a platform to investigate supposed Communists in the U.S. Government. And to look like the strongest anti-Communist around and to advance his political career.

Bob Parker: Video: CBS News 1968, A Year That Changed America

Source:The Daily Press

I think one thing that separates America and makes us stronger than anyone else is that we can go through a year like 1968 and get through it and survive it. And still remain one country, unlike other countries that tend to go through such division between the people and their government and overall establishment of the country in one year and you see them come apart. With the government falling and perhaps even leading to some type of civil war. Egypt comes to mind pretty fast and what is going on in Syria and Venezuela right now are other good examples.

Having said all of that, its hard to find anything good about 1968 other than maybe the music and the fact that we started to get along better as far as race relations. Where racism and other types of bigotry started to really go out of style. And bigots were left to hide their bigotry or pay serious prices for it. But other than that 1968 was one big disaster after another. A year full of violence with murders and assassinations, the President of the United States deciding not to even bother running for reelection because there were so many people who literally hated him in both parties.

And that is just about the domestic scene in America, but then you go to the Vietnam War itself with Americans finally figuring out that we are not just losing the war, but it is probably lost. And we started seeing all of those dead American soldiers coming home from it. I guess one good thing about 1968 is that Americans finally woke up. And figured out that their government not only doesn’t always tell the truth, but they even lie to their people. The Johnson Administration saying that they were making progress in Vietnam when they knew the opposite was true and that Communist Vietnam was getting stronger.

1968 represents the 1960s as well as it could possibly be. A year of revolution, protest, violence, people coming together from multiple races to be part of the same movement. Where millions of Americans became free to be themselves and no long feel like they had to live a certain way of life in order to fit in or even be good people. 1968 was a shakeup of the entire United States and perhaps was something that the country needed. Even with all the violence and the lost of lives in that decade so Americans would know about the problems in the country, but also what could be done about them. And what also makes us great as a country which is our freedom and diversity.

Reason Magazine: Javier Sicilia: The Caravan For Peace Calls For an End to The Drug War

Source:Real Life Journal

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors, first, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if its abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you. Don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save. People who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others.

David Von Pein: The Zapruder Film is Shown on Goodnight America With Geraldo Rivera- MARCH 6, 1975

Source:The Daily Press

I don't believe there is any question who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. That man is obviously Lee Harvey Oswald. He had the access, the motive, the ability, his gun was the gun that killed President Kennedy, his fingerprints were on the gun. If he ever made it to trial he would have had to pleaded guilty to have any shot in hell (where he's currently residing) to have any shot in hell of avoiding the death penalty. That is not the question as far as who actually killed President Kennedy. And for anyone who disagrees with that, you really should treat them as if they're mental patients, or liars like Roger Stone to use as an example. Whose probably made millions from his books with his own JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

The only question for me is did anyone else put Lee Oswald up to the assassination  and then used him as their patsy. Knowing he was going to get caught and probably given the death penalty as a result, but Oswald agreed to do it anyway. Jack Kennedy, had a lot of enemies in Texas and Dallas perhaps especially both on the Far-Left where Oswald represented as a Marxist. But on the Far-Right for his support for civil and equal rights for African-Americans. And for his economic liberalism and wanting to use government to create new economic opportunity for people who needed it. But from organized crime especially the Italian Mafia, because of his administration's crackdown on organized crime. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald had organize crime connections as well. Which just ignites the organize crime theory behind the JFK assassination.

We know, at least anyone who both has a brain and is sane at the same time, which is an accomplishment unfortunately for too many Americans, who assassinated President John Kennedy. The question was there anyone else involved or not. Was this something that was just put together by a highly intelligent and sharp man who was also deranged and a loser all in the same person. Or did he not only have help as far as actually pulling off the assassination with a second shooter and have people behind them that put the hit out and hired them to do it. Was Oswald the lone shooter, but was hired by others to assassinate the President. These are the questions that I at least and a lot of other intelligent sane Americans don't have the answers to yet. Which is why speculation in this case still goes on. And how the Roger Stone's of the world make their money.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Freakin Ridiculous Fine For Swearing

Source:The Daily Journal

Warning! To all of you sensitive viewers who are offended by cussing, you may want to close your eyes as you attempt to read this blog. Because it may have language inappropriate for your sensitive eyes and brain.

If fining people for what they say in public and I’m talking about what people say to each other, we obviously don’t have a constitutional right to threaten people, but that’s not what this is about, but what people say in public that’s not threatening especially when they are angry and have a right to be or are inpatient, if fining people for blowing off steam (to put it mildly) is not a violation of the First Amendment, the constitutional right to free speech, then the First Amendment is useless. And should be thrown out and we no longer live in a liberal democracy, but a police state.

Which perhaps some Americans would like us to be so we can become what we say we are against and get on other countries for being. Fines for foul language, perhaps they make sense on TV, especially for kids who don’t understand that language yet. And we don’t want them cussing out their parents and teachers and that sort of thing and hopefully vice-versa, all right. I can go along with that, but fining people for what they say on the streets, even when they aren’t cussing at anyone in particular, is fucking bullshit. And I already put out the warning so don’t get on me for that now.

For someone in my age range and generation, I don’t cuss very often. People now judge other people for how much they cuss. You’ll have a hard time finding a comedian under fifty today who doesn’t fucking cuss their ass off when performing and in general. They do it to sound cool and to be funny. For a lot of people cussing is a way of communication, that’s how they talk, you won’t find a hit fictional show on cable (and not just HBO) that doesn’t have a ton of cussing. A shit load even, (if you prefer) because they want their shows to sound cool.

And that’s how you communicate to young people today. For me cussing is a form of expression, I cuss to express anger, or amazement. Like, “holy shit that building is huge!” Or that guy is fat to use as examples. But I’m not one whose blown away by things like that very often and a pretty even-tempered guy and will say what the hell, or get the hell out of here, that sort of thing, instead of what the fuck. So when I do drop F or S Bombs, you know I meant it and not just trying to sound cool.

But just because I don’t fucking cuss my ass off on a regular basis, doesn’t mean I believe others should be fined when they do. Because that’s just plain God Damn Fucking Stupid! Is your life so fucking boring that you have to regulate what comes out of other people’s mouths, when they aren’t threatening, or libeling people, or yelling fire in a crowded place? Is your thumb so far of your fucking ass, you don’t have anything better to do with your time? And that pretty much sums up how I feel about this Massachusetts so-called public decency law.

CNN: Senator Ted Kennedy's 1980 DNC Speech

Source:The Daily Journal

Had Democrats seen more of this during the primaries, may Ted Kennedy beats President Carter in 1980. You don't wait till the last speech of your presidential campaign to give your best speech. Especially after it's already been decided that you aren't going to win. Especially when you never figured out while you were running in the first place. Ted Kennedy, didn't want to be president. Not sure his family did either, but his supporters especially the Progressive Left in the Democratic Party, wanted him to run for president. That is why, plus the facts that President Jimmy Carter, was so unpopular politically and there was  a bad economy, a Democratic Congress, that Senator Ted Kennedy was obviously part of. Democrats were in serious trouble in 1980.

Looking back at it now, not sure if the Ted Kennedy presidential run hurt or helped President Carter. In a way it actually helped him, because the Democratic contest really got his reelection campaign going. And he just didn't beat Senator Kennedy in most of the primaries, but he trounced him. Teddy, didn't wain a major primary until March of 1980. But it hurt the President in the sense that now the party was divided between their Progressive Left and even George McGovern New-Left and their Center-Left. Their New Democratic Coalition that Jimmy Carter represented. Going up in the fall against a very united Republican Party that was all behind Ronald Reagan. And anxious to get back into power and win the White House back.

The Film Archive: Ron Paul On The Principles of the Libertarian Party in 1988

Source:Real Life Journal

The Ron Paul of 1988 is the Ron Paul of 2012 when it comes to his principles. Whether you agree with Representative Paul or not and I tend to agree with him when it comes to issues with the national debt, budget deficit and social issues, at least you know where he is on the issues. The closest thing that the so-called Left from Center-Left where I am, to Far-Left where Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats in America would be, is Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. The only Independent member of Congress. And the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But certainly not the only Democratic Socialist in Congress. Especially in the House if you look at how some self-described so-called Progressive Democrats talk and vote.

Someone like a Ron Paul a hard-core classical Libertarian, who is actually fairly Far-Right on economic policy and libertarian on social issues, but not completely anti-government there at least when it comes to people hurting innocent people, could never get elected President of the United States. At least not in the near future. Because even though Americans now tend to agree with Paul on social issues, they like Social Security, Medicare, a public safety net for people who truly need it.  But that is what makes Paul so principled, because I believe he knows these things, but he doesn't see politics as a popularity contest. And believes in his own views so much that he's willing to speak out in favor of what he's in favor of and what he's against. Even if no one else agrees with him.

There's a lot to respect about people who are willing to continue to fight losing battles. Equal rights for all Americans was certainly not popular in the 1940s and 1950s. And yet that is where you see the American civil rights movement get started and about twenty-years later we get the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a few years after that the 1968 Fair Housing Law. Where those laws don't pass without a lot of support from Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate. Just because something, or someone might seem unpopular at the time, doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Which is what I believe Ron Paul supporters and other hard-right Libertarians should be thinking as they move forward.

Los Angeles Times: What Would Mitt Romney Cut? Overheard Conversation Holds Clues

Source:FreeState Now

If you want to be a strong Leader, you have a vision of where you want to take the country and have a feel where you want to take the country and believe you are right. And can explain and back up why you believe you're right. Then you should tell everyone else that as well. Especially people who are considering voting for you. Any politician can say "I’ll tell you my plans once I’m elected". But voters deserve to know why they should vote for you instead. Blind-voting is not healthy for democracy. We should be educated about the people we consider for high office. 

Voters want to know why they are voting for someone. What they believe in, what they are for. Because they don’t have to vote for you, they can vote for your opponent instead. This has been my major disappointment with President Obama. Who so far in a lot of areas has taken the approach of "let others work it out and I’ll come in and save the day when they fail". If candidates believe so strongly in what they are proposing, they should have the, well guts to keep this clean and be able to explain why they are proposing what they are proposing. 

Instead of telling voters, that is if they are on truth serum, "ask me what I'm in favor of once I'm elected. And if you are in favor of it, I'll tell you". The differences between governing and campaigning, is once you're actually in office, you're held accountable for the decisions you make. Whereas when you're campaigning, you can theoretically say anything and promise just about anything. Knowing you don’t have to live up to anything you said and promise. And will probably be able to explain why you're changing course once you're in office. 

A politician can say, "the situation has changed and we must change course to respond to the new, circumstances effectively". Or in Rick Perry's case, "I was drunk when I originally took those positions and now that I'm somewhat sober, I know I was wrong and feel the need to change those positions". Or in Michelle Bachmann's case, "I was off my medication when I took those positions". Well actually Michelle is still off her medication, but hopefully she'll be back on it when this Congress is over and head back home to the institution.

But what strong leaders do, especially executives, whether you agree with what they did or not, is lay out where they want to take the country. And once they are in office, stick with that. Put their agenda through or most of it. Whether you like President George W. Bush or not and I voted against him twice and still celebrate both of those votes annually. And if anything I've become more religious since he's left the White House. Because I thank God he's no longer President everyday. But at least you knew what he believed in. He was just wrong most of the time and didn't understand that. 

With Mitt Romney depending on which Mitt is speaking, moderate Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, Religious-Conservative Mitt or establishment Mitt, it is "ask me when I'm in office and then maybe I'll tell you if I believe I need your support in the next election". So what the media does instead to try to find out his positions is talk to people he's talked to and analyze his policies that he puts up on his campaign site. And analyze them for themselves, because he can't or won't explain what his own policies would do. And America deserves better leadership than that. 

Jeff Quitney: Video: Barry Goldwater Speaks Out 1964: Goldwater For President Committee

Source:The Daily Post

The Goldwater Presidential Campaign movies might of not have been the most professionally made movies. But they were somewhat ahead of their time, because they were made by the Goldwater Campaign and gave Senator Goldwater the opportunity, 15-20 minutes on network television to layout exactly where he was on the issues and what he wanted to do as President. And to show Americans that he wasn’t crazy. That he wasn’t the person that President Johnson and his campaign were trying to make him look like. As well as other Democrats that were trying to make Senator Goldwater look crazy.

Because Senator Goldwater believed in things like individual freedom and personal responsibility. If I was alive and old enough to vote in 1964, instead of being born eleven years later, I would’ve voted for President Johnson, because of Civil Rights. That he believed individual rights over states rights. Southern Democrats as well as some Republicans in Congress like Barry Goldwater, believed in the opposite. And when President Johnson was against getting American Armed Forces involved in the Vietnam War. Of course that changed later in 1965. But in 1964 President Johnson was the peace candidate, but Senator Goldwater wasn’t crazy. But a Classical Conservative who believed in individual freedom.

This film of course is a propaganda film by the Goldwater Campaign. An opportunity for them to layout where he is. Get out the message of what they want Americans to think about Barry Goldwater. And not hear the other side, but this film does give people an idea of where Barry Goldwater was politically. That he believed in individual freedom and personal responsibility. Peace Through Strength, that his foreign policy of course would’ve been different from President Johnson.

Senator Goldwater would’ve taken a much harder approach to the Vietnam War and would’ve not only had sent American troops there, but we would’ve been there to win the war, even for Vietnam itself. Which I believe would’ve been a very bad mistake, because that would’ve left us there to occupy that country, similar to Iraq. But with a President Goldwater we wouldn’t have seen the Great Society and perhaps more of a free market approach to solve those problems.

I would’ve love to of seen a presidential debate between President Johnson and Senator Goldwater. It wouldn’t have been an interesting as a presidential debate between Barry and President Kennedy. But it still would’ve been a very good debate, because we would’ve seen both men as they are. Rather than how the media portrays them and Americans would’ve had a clear choice in who to vote for.

All Histories: New Deal 1930's Government Promotional

Source:The Daily Journal

The New Deal I believe has a mixed bag when it comes to the Great Depression as far as how it dealt with the Depression. Social Security and the minimum wage and perhaps a few other things like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, have all been success’. But the American economy ten years into the Depression which stared in 1931, or so and again the Depression took up most of Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms as President, the economy was still in fairly weak shape. A lot of what you probably see in this video is probably true, but they’re not going to give you the whole story. Americans went back to work during the 1930s, but a lot of other Americans were still out of work. Or not making the money that they use to and perhaps now working part-time.

If you look at the American economy in the 1930s and then go up to the 1940s, there’s no comparison. The 1930s, America is either in depression, or recession most of if not the whole decade. And was looking at unemployment levels of twenty-percent or more. The 1940s, thanks to World War II and I’m sure some government infrastructure investment, is where you see Americans go back to work and working good jobs. The 1940s and World War II, were huge economic booms for the American auto industry and the American military industry. All of those vehicles and equipment that was needed to fight World War II in Europe and Japan. And you obviously need good workers to build those vehicles and that equipment. And that is where the jobs are created.

Of course any government propaganda video is going to show you the highlights of what the current administration is working on and show their success’. So this film isn’t any different in that way. Which is why people need to know the difference between the whole truth and propaganda and do their own research. Not that government will lie to you necessarily of course, at least not all the time even though the best administration’s do lie, but they’re not going to tell you the whole story. But what they want you to hear, which is really the definition of propaganda. So what you need to do is find out the rest of the story and then be able to judge for yourself what is really going on. And how bad or good it actually is.

History Day: Iran Hostage Crisis Documentary 4th in State

Source:The Daily Press

What a crazy time for America and Iran. The Iranian people were fed up with their dictatorial authoritarian government that they had in Iran under the Shah that both the United Kingdom and United States backed for almost forty years and even installed in Iran. So what you had was a bunch of Islamic theocratic revolutionaries under Ruhollah Khomeini decided to stand up and the Shah knew he no longer had the authority to lead his country and decided to leave his country. Which left a power shortage in Iran with a new Islamic theocratic government under Supreme Leader Khomeini coming into place.

And because America had backed the Shah for so long and President Jimmy Carter saying that the Shah was such a fine leader and good man for Iran, these Iranian revolutionaries decided to take out their frustration and anger on what was left of American involvement in Iran which was our embassy there. And took about hundred American U.S. embassy employees hostage. Which is how the Iranian hostage crisis started. Which was essentially the end of Jimmy Carter as a strong leader in America, or even having the potential of being a strong leader of the United States. Because now America looked weak compared to a third-world country and was held hostage.

US News & World Report: Video: Simon Owens & Lauren Fox: The Differences Between Paul Ryan & Ayn Rand

Source:The FreeState

I’m not going to say that Representative Paul Ryan is a Culture Warrior Big Government Republican, At least not in the mold of a Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is and I don’t know enough about him to say that anyway. But Paul Ryan’s respect for Ayn Rand has to do with her beliefs as it relates to economics. Ayn Rand was a Objectivist/Libertarian. Didn’t want government involved in the economy at all and didn’t believe that government had the right to force people to do anything with their money. Which is kinda where Paul Ryan is on economics, but not quite that libertarian, but they both believe that government shouldn’t be regulating the economy, but they probably differ on every key Social Issue.

You can imagine and if Ayn Rand were alive today and looking to run for office or was an elected official, she probably wouldn’t be a Republican. She wouldn’t fit into today’s GOP. She would be seen like an outcast like how they now treat Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul. Maybe she would be a Republican just to hold office. And live in an area, or State with a large libertarian population, where she didn’t need the support of Neoconservatives in order to get elected and reelected. Representative Ryan, fits in very well with today’s GOP, except that he doesn’t push social issues very much if at all. Neither does Mitt Romney, which could hurt this ticket with Neoconservatives in the fall, in States like Virginia, Ohio and Florida.

But Mitt, pretty much votes the party line. Republicans like talking about Ayn Rand and telling people how much they respect her. But its only economics they talk about when it comes to Ayn Rand. They don’t believe in her philosophy of Freedom of Choice essentially. That people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. That government shouldn’t interfere with how people live their own lives. Instead they believe that government should establish some type of moral code in how Americans should live. And live up to their ideals of what Americans should be and all of that. And that’s just not Ayn Rand and hopefully not Paul Ryan either.

I wish even as a Liberal Democrat that people like Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand had more influence on today’s Republican Party. Then they would be a real party of ideas, that didn’t believe it needed to prevent people from voting, just because they believe they wouldn’t vote Republican. Which is what Voter ID is all about. But this is still Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s GOP, a Neoconservative Big Government party.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Gary Johnson at FreedomFest in 2012

Source:FreeState Now

If the 2012 presidential election was purely about ideology and who I prefer and who is best qualified to be President of the United States, then Gary Johnson would be my first choice followed by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. And if I had to guess I'm not the only Liberal Democrat who believes this. Unless you are a Bible Belt Democrat and you are mostly a Democrat because of family history, it's very hard to imagine any Democrat voting for Mitt Romney for president. But what I think Liberals like about Gary Johnson, is that he actually cares about things that Democrats have claimed to be in favor of the last fifty years. As it relates to Social Issues.

And that Liberals have hated the War on Drugs for the last forty years and we believe in all of these constitutional rights, that we believe that President Obama has weakened. As it relates to the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc. We've hated the way the Obama Administration has applied the War on Drugs. With all of the marijuana crackdowns, even though we've intended to agree with President Obama on foreign policy and at least what he is trying to do with the economy. And if he had those strong positions as it related to social issues, I don't believe the President would have any issues with the Democratic Party, at least with Liberals.

But with Gary Johnson you get those strong liberal values, to go along with truly believing in fiscal responsibility. He's not Ron Paul who wants to eliminate most of the Federal Government, but someone who really believes in deficit reduction and has a balanced approach. That puts everything on the table and a lot of that has to do with reforming the Federal Government. By having state and local governments do more to managed the safety net on their own. And lets see what they can do with them.

Governor Johnson is not talking about eliminating these social insurance programs. Which is what you would get with Representative Ron Paul, or gutting these programs. Which is what you would get with Representative Paul Ryan. But decentralizing them and reforming them to make them work better. Which would make them more cost-effective and that by itself would mean we would spend less on them. Because they would be more efficient. As well as in defense where we would get out of nations that can afford to defend themselves.

But unfortunately for me and as well as for Governor Johnson, he doesn't have an ice cubes chance in Hell of winning the presidential election. He won't have the name ID or ballot access that's needed to win the presidential election and defeating Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the Tea Party. These things are more important than having Gary Johnson as our President. Which is why I can't vote for Gary in 2012. To have a Gary Johnson, a Social Liberal/Left-Libertarian or Liberal Libertarian as President of the United States, you have to have universal polling and ballot access. So someone other than the Democratic or Republican presidential nominees, can make a real run for president in this country.

Richard Nixon Foundation: President Richard Nixon's 1972 State of The Union Address

Source:The FreeState

President Richard Nixon's foreign policy I believe was very clear and yet brilliant. That the United States would be the Democratic leader of the world. Not that we would try to run all of the democracies around the world, but that we would layout the vision of what liberal democracy looks like and what we mean by liberal democracy. And yes our liberal values. Sorry Conservatives, deal with it. And that we would even work with authoritarian states, like the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, authoritarian arab states, the Persian Kingdom in Iran, before they became the Islamic Republic.

We would work with those states as well where we could so we could influence them. Especially their people and show them there's another way of living and it's called freedom. But we would also work with these states to insure peace and freedom around the world where we could. That's why President Nixon went to Russia and China and that's why he negotiated nuclear arms treaties with Russia. And that America couldn't defend the free world by itself. That Europe had to play their role as well, instead of Americans having to pay for and do most of the work. That's what you hear in this 1972 State of The Union address.

What President Nixon also talked about was the need for what the Nixon Administration called revenue sharing. Which is an approach that Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson is pushing and something that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney also agrees with. Remember, President Nixon inherited the Great Society from President Lyndon Johnson, to go along with the New Deal. From President Franklin Roosevelt thirty-years earlier. And he didn't run for president in 1968 to eliminate the New Deal or Great Society. He knew he would've never gotten that out of a Democratic Congress.

And perhaps President Nixon didn't believe in eliminating the New Deal and Great Society  to begin with. But he wanted to find a way to make these programs as successful as possible, to make them as cost-effective and as efficient as possible. And he believed that empowering state and local government's was the best way to accomplish this by having them run them, with resources from the Federal Government. When it comes to policy, President Nixon is mostly known as a foreign policy President, for what he accomplished there. And even though foreign policy was the strongest interest he had, perhaps from being Vice President for eight years under President Eisenhower, it wasn't his only interest. And the only area that he wanted to work on. And he had a vision for domestic policy as well, but ran out of time to accomplish that because of the Watergate scandal.

Financial Survival Network: Kerry Lutz Interviewing Gary Johnson- Proven Budget Cuter From New Mexico

Source:FreeState Now

With all the talk about the debt and deficit and what we should do about it if anything the last four years and most of it has been just talk including the so called Ryan Plan, I've only seen four serious plans the last four years to pay down our debt and deficit. President Obama hasn't offered one, Congressional Republicans and Democrats in the House or Senate haven't offered one. But a committee of people have offered one. The Bowles/Simpson Commission back in late 2010, Republican Senator Tom Coburn authored his own plan back in the summer of 2011. During the debate over the raising the debt ceiling.

Libertarian Republican Representative Ron Paul, offered one this year and Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, came out with his own plan last year as well. I'm not saying these are the plans I would've written myself, even though I like aspects of all of them. Bowles/Simpson and the Johnson plans are the best. But they are the only serious plans out there, because they all recognize the serious financial issues the country faces and offer real solutions. In how to deal with these problems, unlike President Obama, Governor Romney or the House Republicans. Senate Democrats aren't even in the game yet as far as offering their own plan.

If you are actually serious about deficit reduction and don't just like the issue or like talking about it and most what has been said about deficit reduction has been talk, then you understand the need to basically reform the Federal budget. Look at the key areas of the Federal budget that are the most expensive and figure out ways to make those things that we actually need more efficient and eliminate the things that we don't need and can't afford. And these key areas are entitlements and the broader safety net, the defense budget, the tax code and Federal Government reform.

Does the Federal Government need to manage all of the public services that it does, even the things that we need in this country. Or are there better ways to run these public services and have them run by other people. To make them more efficient and more effective. So they perform better public services for the people. Bowles-Simpson, Senator Coburn, Representative Paul and Governor Johnson, are the only people that have brought serious proposals to deal with these debt and deficit issues. And if you've noticed, none of the people who have offered these proposals, are running for president. Or have a legitimate shot of getting elected president in 2012. And part of that is because what it takes to address these issues, a lot of Americans aren't ready to hear about yet.