Peter Schiff: Michael Moore: Americans Wouldn't Need Guns if We Had More Welfare

Source:FreeState Now

I don’t know where Michael Moore gets his facts if you want to call them that. More like talking points, spin and so-forth that the Far-Left in America uses to get their message across. But looking at the facts in America before concluding that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment or the right to self-defense because only ‘White people’ believe in it and use and buy guns so somehow under the far-left’s logic again if you want to call it that, but if you at the facts gun ownership is multi-racial in America.

But logic tends to be logical, so lets say ideology and under their ideology the Far-Left’s ideology 2nd Amendment is somehow racist because it only benefits one race in America. Look I don’t believe in that, just looking at the Far-Left’s arguments you know what this is why I don’t watch MSNBC. Even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, except for Lockup and perhaps the replay of Meet The Press because I like to sleep in on Sunday. Because they take people like Mike Moore and other far-Leftists seriously and treat them as people of wisdom and so forth.

Guns aren’t just in rural America and in the South where Anglo-Saxons tend to be a large majority in those communities. Go to a big city at some point like Detroit, Cleveland, New York or whatever the big city, these cities are very diverse racially and ethnically and have gun stores and other places where you can buy guns. And they are bought by mixture of people of different racial and ethnic groups. Freaking Ed Schultz Progressive talk show host on MSNBC owns firearms. This isn’t a racial issue or an ideological issue.

The 2nd Amendment in America has broad racial and ideological support because a wide range of Americans have use for firearms. Doesn’t mean as a country we don’t believe in gun control. But to suggest that the 2nd Amendment is racist and that Caucasians as a group buy guns to arm themselves against African-Americans is flat ignorance. The Far-Left in America likes to speak about the need for tolerance, equality, equal rights and so-forth. All things I believe in as a Liberal otherwise I wouldn’t be much of a Liberal. Except they don’t believe in tolerance when it comes to Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxons and rural Anglo-Saxon males. And in many cases their own race, which is why they are part of a fringe in America. Because Americans tend to believe that tolerance, equality and equal rights should apply to all Americans, not just minorities.

Rachel Maddow: Montana U.S. Senator Jon Tester Backs Marriage Equality

Source:Free State MD

I use to think that the Democratic Party was made up of Liberals such as myself, Progressive-Socialists, or Social-Democrats, like Rachel Maddow to use as an example and people I would call Moderate-Liberals. The Hillary Clinton's of the party, who probably in their heart are pretty liberal. But are afraid that if so called Independents knew how liberal they were, that would cost them support. So they are kinda closet Liberals if that makes any sense. "Look, we are with you and just can't let the whole world know about it." Gay marriage should be a no-brainer for anyone on the left, or even center-right. Because it gets down to do you believe all Americans should be treated equally under law based on how they conduct themselves in society and so-fourth. Not what they do in their personal lives. We obviously don't treat criminals as equally as law-biding people, but should all Americans be treated equally under law based on how they carry themselves, or not.

Should straits be given special treatment under law just for being strait over gays, or not. Thats the bottom line and what the whole gay marriage debate is about. I still believe that the Democratic Party is a party of Liberals and Progressive-Socialists or Social Democrats. The question is where does the other faction of the party fit in, how should they be labeled. How do you label someone who by in large look like Democrats politically, but likes to play it safe on key social issues. I'm not playing mind-reader or anything, but if I had to guess Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have a problem with gay marriage four years ago. And perhaps even longer than that. These so-called evolutions on the issue is a political evolution rather than a philosophical evolution.

Personally, I bet gay marriage hasn't been a problem for these safe Democrats for a while. But officially they've been playing it safe. Until they knew they wouldn't get hurt by being in favor of gay marriage, or needed to be in favor of it. Like in the case of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in order to win further political support. Thats not being a leader, but playing it safe and playing follow the leader. Maybe the term for Democrats who don't like to take stands and standout and go out on a limb even when its the right thing to do, should be Safe-Democrats. Democrats who play it safe until they have to take a stand and thats when they show their true liberal democratic credentials. Which is why even though I love being a Democrat and love the Democratic Party, I'm not here to say that we have all the Saints and we are perfect. Because have our own flaws as well.

Walter E. Williams: Are We Equal?

Source:FreeState Now

There’s a big difference between equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity and equality at all costs. All of these things are guaranteed to us as Americans, except for equality at all costs. And compare equality opportunity and treatment with no one should be treated better than anyone else or that no one is entitled to more success or wealth in America. Which to put it simply equality at all costs that we are all equal and no one deserves to be treated better anyone else. Which is sorta the Progressive notion of equality and why they believe in things like affirmative action. Equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity means that no Americans shall be treated better or worse based on race or ethnicity or any other non relevant characteristics they may have that has nothing to do with the goals or positions that they are shooting for. That they aren’t to be treated better or worse based on these factors.

The fact that 25% of African-Americans live in poverty when the country as a whole has around a 17% depending on which numbers you look at when it comes to poverty. Thats not racist its just that fewer African-Americans have an opportunity to get a better education than European or Asian-Americans because more often than their counterparts they tend to grow up in poverty. Which is a problem but it’s not racist or that more people in the European and Asian-American communities tend to be wealthier on average and have better jobs and their kids have a better access to education and so forth is not racist either. These groups are just taking advantage of the opportunities that were given to them not based on race but how they were raised and so forth.

People doing better than people from another race or ethnicity is only racist. When they are rewarded opportunities because of their race over people who were as qualified as they were or more qualified. Which is why we have civil rights laws in America but it’s not racist just because some groups of people tend to do better than others. As long as they weren’t given those opportunities based on their race. And people who aren’t doing as well weren’t denied opportunities based on their race.

Liberty Pen: The John Stossel Show: Ann Coulter: The Case Against Liberty

Source:FreeState Now

I’ll give Ann Coulter credit for something. For perhaps the first and last time. Perhaps the first time I heard her make a good point about anything. That as long as we have a so-called welfare state where we have to pay for others health care and mistakes and so-forth, that we shouldn’t be forced to subsidize things that could add to those costs. Which is why she’s against legalizing marijuana. Which as a Liberal I think about myself. I believe in a high deal of personal freedom, as long as it comes with personal responsibility and rule of law. The problem that drug warriors have and Ann Coulter being one of them, is that the argument that they use against marijuana is the same argument that can be used against alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. All drugs that have health risks and come with a cost for society and that we’ve decided as a country that we are going to tolerate those risks. As a cost for living in a free society and liberal democracy. And more than half of the country has already decided that marijuana is a risk worth taking as well.

Ann Coulter makes the best case for why marijuana and other illegal narcotics should be illegal. I still disagree with that for several reasons. That freedom has its awards and risks. So the question is who should be left with the power to make those decisions. Government making those decisions for us, or should the people be able to make those decisions for themselves and hold them accountable for the decisions that make. Rather than government trying to make decisions for people in how best to live our own lives. People they don’t know and never met, generally from a far away place. The other problem that drug warriors have is their contradiction to their argument that they don’t even see, or won’t acknowledge. That is they are fine with alcohol, tobacco, steroids, prescription drugs, sugar, caffeine and so-forth. All legal drugs that have costs and risks for society that have harmed and ruined lives and have taken lives.

But marijuana and other illegal narcotics for drug warriors are not acceptable, because they believe it has high costs and risks, for society. That will harm people and ruin as well as take lives. And that’s something they haven’t been able to respond to. In any democracy or free society, there’s going to be risks versus reward, benefits and harm. The question is who should make the decisions with how people live their own lives. The people them self who one way, or another will have to deal with the consequences of those decisions whoever makes them. Or government trying to make decisions for people it doesn’t know from a far away place in most cases. And I’m always with the individual when it comes to our own lives.

Billy Blythe: Vintage Redskins: Dave Butz

Source:Real Life Journal

Back in 1975 then Redskins Head Coach/General Manager George Allen traded for S.t. Louis Cardinals defensive tackle Dave Butz, who was probably the best trade that coach Allen ever made at least in Washington. Because Butz would go on to anchor the Redskins defense for the next fourteen seasons. While the Cardinals after the 1975 pretty much went in decline failing to make the NFC Playoffs for the rest of their time in S.t. Louis. After making the NFC Playoffs both in 1974 and 1975.

Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells didn’t have much in common, but they both believed in at least one thing together when it came to football. That you win football games by controlling the line of scrimmage. You run the ball well and stop the run, you protect your quarterback and pressure the other teams quarterback. And you protect the ball and come up with a takeaway or two. 

You do those things well and you’ve dramatically increased your chances of winning. Because now you are in charge of who can move the ball down the field because you can run and throw. While your opponent is having their running game stuffed and consistently seeing their quarterback hit and under pressure. Joe Gibbs gets a lot of credit for the Redskins having such great offensive teams while he was in Washington as he should. But the fact is in his tenure and under assistant head coach Ritchie Pettibone, the Redskins except for maybe 1981, were always in the top ten in defense. 

Because the Redskins were about as good as anyone or better than anyone in the 1980s at controlling the line of scrimmage. On both sides of the ball which is why their pass rush led by defensive ends Dexter Manley, Charles Mann and others including Dave Butz, was so good, because the Redskins forced teams to throw the ball a lot. And consistently throw the ball under pressure because they couldn’t run the ball. 

Dave Butz was the anchor of the Redskins defense in the 1980s because he consistently commanded double teams if not triple teams. Because of his awesome size and strength, 6’7 300 pounds plus. Looked more like an offensive tackle with better mobility back in an era when defensive lineman weren’t generally that big. Which freed up a lot of one-on-one matchup's for DT Darryl Grant, Dexter and others.

Foreign Affairs: Gideon Rose: Iraq in Retrospect

Source:FRS FreeState

The Iraq War is a tough issue for me. Because pre-Iraq invasion and up until the summer of 2003 when it was discovered that there were no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the Saddam Regime was so weak that it couldn’t defend itself and probably could’ve been taken out by what’s going on currently in Syria, or what happened in Libya by simply arming the Iraqi people and having a civil war and of course all the money that was not only spent but borrowed that American tax payers are going to have to payback, I was in favor of it.

Congress and the American people simply didn’t have enough information to make a decision like this and that had we just spent 3-6 months, or taken all of 2003 even to think about this, if we just had more information and better information, I don’t believe Congress approves of this war. Even if Republicans controlled both the House and Senate when. I’m not trying to sound like John Kerry from back in 2003-04 and say I was for it before I was against it, but that’s exactly my situation. And I’m not trying to make excuses about why I was for it.

I thought after 9/11 that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a Baathist dictator in the heart of Arabia in a big country the size of Iraq, we are talking about California here, with the Islāmic terrorists in the area, would be bad for not only the broader Middle East but for America as well. Because Saddam’s regime was so weak at the time and could’ve used the money that would come from selling his weapons to terrorists groups and other authoritarian regimes. What I didn’t know and this comes from not doing all of my homework is that Saddam no longer had any WMD and didn’t have connections with terrorists groups at all.

One of the legacies of the Iraq War is that there were many mistakes made upfront and have Bipartisan hands written on them. Like the fact that the Democratic Party led at the time by Tom Daschle controlled the U.S. Senate and that there was a divided Congress as a result. So Senate Democrats led by Leader Daschle could’ve simply said no to the Iraq War and killed it in Congress by themselves. Takes both chambers of Congress to write laws, but it only takes one chamber to kill laws and resolutions.

Senate Democrats could’ve simply said, “no, we are not ready to do this. Congress doesn’t have all the information that we need to make this decision.” And Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Bob Graham Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees could’ve spent the last couple months of that Congress in 2001-02 holding hearings to get more information about Iraq. And the situation it was in financially, militarily and everything else.

The legacy of the Iraq War is really about bad intelligence and not having enough solid information. How we not know going in that Saddam was as weak as he was and his country was as weak as it was. How we go in there without enough people to occupy this big country and not knowing that the Iraqi people weren’t ready to govern themselves. Takeover the military and law enforcement agencies and govern the country and the provinces and so-fourth. And how we not know how weak their economy was especially in the energy sector where this country should be energy independent.

All of these things we should’ve known especially Congress upfront before you commit your country’s resources and manpower to invade a country like this. Had we had this information upfront we would’ve known that Saddam isn’t a threat to anyone outside of his country. The legacy of the Iraq War on the positive is that one of the worst dictators and serial murderers and tortures of the 20th Century was eliminated allowing for a country rich in resources and in people to do very well.

With a real shot at a bright future, but at heavy cost for the Iraqi and American people. In lost treasure and in money and lives and for the most part. The lessons of it are how not to invade a country and do your homework and get all the needed information available and decide based on all of that. Is it worth it or not and go from there.

President John F. Kennedy: Last Speech at Ft. Worth Prayer Breakfast Before Being Assassinated (1963)

Source:FRS FreeState 

Liberalism at it's core, forget about classical versus modern and classical liberalism is not libertarianism and so-called modern liberalism is a form of progressivism or democratic socialism, but liberalism at it's core is about individual freedom. And government's number one and only job is to protect individual freedom for those who have it and still deserve it. Meaning that haven’t hurt any innocent people. 

And expanding individual freedom for those who don’t have, but need and deserve it. Through things like education and job training, empowering those who need it to get themselves the tools and skills that they need in order to live in freedom like the rest of the country. Liberalism is not about the state especially the Federal Government and that government needs to be big enough tax enough to have the resources to take care of people. Because it doesn’t trust individuals and the private sector to be able to make their own decisions for themselves. 

Liberals believe that individuals once they are educated and have all of the important information available and that there are the right rules in place to prevent people from abusing innocent people and punish people when they do, that the individual more often than not will make the right decisions for themselves. Especially better than government doing that for them. Because the individual knows what they need and what they want to do in life. Not government especially when its far away from the individual.

Liberalism is not about economic freedom or social freedom or political freedom or equal rights. But its about individual freedom that covers all of those things. That individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. That is adults have this right as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Liberals aren’t pro-state or anti-state, not pro-big government or pro-small government. But pro-good government that's limited to only doing the things that we people need it to do that we can’t do for ourselves or can’t do as well.

I know I’m being vague on what I expect and want government to do. But that's on purpose because this is not a Liberal Manifesto where I layout what are all of the liberal positions on every single policy. But to layout what Liberals believe at our core. That our philosophy is about individual freedom, pure and simple. That the number one and only job of government is to protect our freedom. For those of us who have it and still deserve it. And for those of us who don’t have it but need and deserve it.

Like I said so-called modern liberalism which is more statist and perhaps not even Liberal at all, "that the number one job of government is to protect people even from themselves, which is why it needs to tax and spend and limit individual freedom for our own good . So we don’t mistakes with our own lives". Like with the New York City soda ban that was just thrown out, this is not liberal, but a form of progressive statism.

ABC News: Pope Francis Elected: Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina Leader of Catholic Church

Source:FRS FreeState 

It's not so much that I don’t believe in God, I’m Agnostic officially, which is the reason I’m not very religious, but I tend to not only look at politics as a Liberal, but also at life as a Liberal. And its not that you can’t be a Liberal and be religious. America is a liberal democracy and by far the most religious country in the Western world outside of South America at least. And we have a lot of Liberals in this country including in the Democratic Party who are very religious. 

The reason why I’m not very religious, is because I tend to look at my politics though a liberal lens and believe in things like individual freedom and a high degree of tolerance as far as how we judge and treat people. That individuals should have a high degree of freedom in how they live their lives as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And what you get from a lot of these Christian as well as Islamic faiths is a high level of intolerance and that there’s only a certain way for people of faith to live their lives and that freedom should be limited.

If there was a religion and maybe there is and I haven’t found it yet that believed in things like individual freedom and not looking down on people just because they drink or smoke or dance, live with their girl or boyfriends before they get married, pre-marital sex, having kids together before they are married, didn’t look down on gays for being gay, watched adult entertainment, gambled their money. All of these things that at least the Religious-Right in America views as immoral and if anything should be outlawed. If there was a Religious-Left that was truly about tolerance and freedom, then maybe I could be part of that. 

If there was a religious-left that was truly liberal and not Socialist, the Religious-Left in America tends to be more socialist than liberal ,but if there was a real religious liberal movement in America, that was truly about treating people the way you want to be treated and was really about individual respect and so fourth, do on to others what you want done to you, then I would have more respect for religion in America.

It's not that I can’t be religious as a Liberal, but that I can’t be part of a religion that puts down people just because of how they live their personal lives. Even if they aren’t hurting any innocent people with what they are doing. Where there isn’t any real level of privacy and where we are all supposed to be collectivists and members of a larger group. Instead of being allowed to just be ourselves and live our own personal lives. 

Durham University: Professor Conor Gearty: Liberty & Security For All

Source:Amazon-  Professor Conor Gearty's book about liberty and security.

Source:FRS FreeState

“All aspire to liberty and security in their lives but few people truly enjoy them. This book explains why this is so. In what Conor Gearty calls our ‘neo-democratic’ world, the proclamation of universal liberty and security is mocked by facts on the ground: the vast inequalities in supposedly free societies, the authoritarian regimes with regular elections, and the terrible socio-economic deprivation camouflaged by cynically proclaimed commitments to human rights.

Gearty’s book offers an explanation of how this has come about, providing also a criticism of the present age which tolerates it. He then goes on to set out a manifesto for a better future, a place where liberty and security can be rich platforms for everyone’s life.

The book identifies neo-democracies as those places which play at democracy so as to disguise the injustice at their core. But it is not just the new ‘democracies’ that have turned ‘neo’, the so-called established democracies are also hurtling in the same direction, as is the United Nations.

A new vision of universal freedom is urgently required. Drawing on scholarship in law, human rights and political science this book argues for just such a vision, one in which the great achievements of our democratic past are not jettisoned as easily as were the socialist ideals of the original democracy-makers.” 

From Amazon 

“Watch Professor Conor Gearty, Professor of Human Rights Law at London School of Economics discuss liberty and security as part of Durham Castle Lecture Series on 23rd January 2013.”

Source:Durham University- Professor Conor Gearty talking about his book about civil liberties and income inequality.

From Durham University

To paraphrase Professor Milton Freedom: you can’t have security without liberty. And I would add vice-versa. Whether you are being oppressed by the state or from criminals or terrorists, you are being oppressed. Whether you are in physical danger from your own government or by criminals or terrorists, the result is the same: you are in physical danger.

When government cracks down on individuals civil liberties and rights even to protect the society from attacks by criminals or terrorists or just to protect it’s own regime from people who want a new government and that represents them and promotes and protects their freedom, you are still being oppressed. And you are giving up your freedom or it’s being taken away from you, for the promise of more security, or not being further oppressed and in more physical danger from your own government.

When I talk about liberal democracy and a free society, I’m not talking about people having the freedom to hurt innocent people to to make decisions with their own lives that others have to pay for. But for the right for people to act and think for themselves or not act at all, so long as they’re not hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing. Since the so-called War On Terror was declared in 2001 by the United States, we’ve moved away from definition of a free society, for the promise of more security. 

David Von Pein: President John F. Kennedy's Cuban Missile Crisis Speech (10/22/1962)

Source:FRS FreeState

What President Kennedy showed during this crisis was to show that his National Security Council was on top of the situation from the beginning. And the question which was a huge question, was what to do about it to prevent missiles from being launched at the United States. President Kennedy, obviously did not want to go to war with another superpower and risk destroying the world in the process. Which might have happened had the United States gone to war with the Soviet Union. Trying to invade the Communist Republic of Cuba with Russian ships in the area was not going to happen without some war. Which meant that the Kennedy Administration, was going to need a negotiated settlement with Russia.

Russia, was literally able to stick their own nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba. Just ninety miles from Miami, Florida. With enough power to eliminate the East Coast of the United States. So President Kennedy and his National Security Council knew they had to get those weapons out of Cuba. They also knew that going to war with a country the size and that was as powerful militarily as the Soviet Union, probably wasn’t an option at all. So they were going to have to work this out diplomatically. To get the weapons out of Cuba, America was going to have to give Russia something they wanted as well.

What prevented World War III during the Cuba Missile Crisis was Russia agreeing to pull their weapons out of Cuba. In return for America pulling their weapons out of Turkey. America, didn’t pass new economic sanctions on Russia hoping that Russia would eventually take the weapons out of Cuba. As well as hoping they would never use them, or give them to Cuba. And America didn’t go to war with Russia and try to settle it that way. Both countries had something that the other wanted and wanted something that the other had. And both were smart and sane enough to settle the crisis diplomatically.

Brookings Institution: Ron Haskins: America’s Welfare Transformation

Source:FreeState Now

In 1996, a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton made Welfare to Work the law of the country. Requiring people who are collecting Welfare Insurance to prepare themselves to go to work, go to school, go back to school, get job training. Get help with job placement and in return would be subsidized for these activities. With child care and continue support that they were getting on public assistance. But the idea was that they would go to work and not collect public assistance indefinitely. And that states would get some flexibility in how they run their Welfare program. So we could see what’s working and not working. And as a result as well as with the economic boom of the 1990s, we saw millions of people get off of public assistance and out of poverty. And into the workforce.

When you subsidize success, work and self-sufficiency, you get more of it. When you subsidize dependency, which is what we did with the old Welfare system pre-1997, you get more of that. Which is what we saw where nothing was expected in the old Welfare system. And people could literally sit at home and collect public assistance checks indefinitely and not be expected to be working. You get more of that and what we did with Welfare Insurance, is exactly what we should be doing with Unemployment Insurance as well.

David Von Pein: 1964 Interview With Karen Carlin

Source:The Daily Press

Perhaps one of the most famous nightclub employees of all time. I don't know much about Karen Carlin and maybe that is because that there isn't much to know about her. But what I get is that she was an attractive women who worked for Jack Ruby at Jack Ruby's nightclub The Carousel in Dallas. And worked there simply because she needed the money. But that she's not someone who has much if any information about Jack Ruby. Other than Ruby might have shot Lee Harvey Oswald the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. She simply worked for the man and only worked there because she needed the money. Because he husband had a hard time holding a good job.

You have to know that this whole story had to do with the assassination of an American President. John F. Kennedy who was President of the United States. This was so very new to most people in the country and the first presidential assassination that was covered in the electronic age with network TV and network news. And any person that might of had some connection to someone who was a big part of this story was automatically seen as suspect, or at least as a potential suspect. Karen Carlin, not only knew Jack Ruby the killer of Lee Oswald who assassinated the President, but she worked for him. Which meant that people automatically assumed that she must know something important about this story.

Divinity: Martin L. King: I Have Been to the Mountaintop Full Speech

Source:The Daily Journal

I don’t believe there are many people perhaps in the history of the world, but certainly in the history of the United States who had better timing than Martin L. King. And I say that for a few reasons, but just take when Reverend King gave this speech and when he died. Which was the next day in 1968 and then look at, or listen to what Reverend King said in this speech and what was in it and what he had to say. Which I at least believe was vision for what the civil rights movement was all about.

And what it meant to be an American no matter your race in a liberal democracy such as the United States. Where we all under the United States Constitution are to be treated equally under law with the same constitutional rights and freedoms as any other American. That we aren’t supposed to be treated better, or worse by law in this country. And that’s just one reason why the way African-Americans were treated in America prior to the civil rights laws of the 1960s was simply unconstitutional. Because African-Americans were treated worse than Caucasian-Americans under law in this country.

What Reverend King was saying in this speech was that he’s seen the mountaintop of where all Americans were being treated equally under law. That this vision is real where no American has to live in poverty. Without the basic necessities and skills to be able to live well in life. That we aren’t there yet and you might not see him there with you, but this vision is real and we can get there together as a people. If we keep moving forward as a people and a country to build this society where no race of people is treated worse under law simply based on their race.

That we can accomplish this and get there together if we keep up the fight and struggle for equal and human rights in this country until we finally reach the mountaintop. And finally accomplish what we’ve struggled for all of these years. Thats what this speech was about as far as I’m concern at least and what Reverend King was telling his supporters. That even if you don’t see him there with you, he’s already seen the vision of what we are fighting for. And know we can get there if we keep on moving the ball forward until we get there.

Robert F. Kennedy Campaign For President (1968)

Source:The Daily Journal

The environmental movement in the late 1960s, which was just becoming big to the point today and perhaps even twenty-years ago that national Democrats at least couldn’t win without them. Especially if they were running for president, but they couldn’t win in Congress without the environmental community unless they represented a very rural state, or district that was heavily dependent on oil, gas and coal. States like West Virginia, to use as an example. America changed a lot politically in the 1960s where the Democratic Party started truly becoming the liberal or progressive party and the Republican Party starting to become the conservative party. With both parties still have moderate factions in them, but just not as big as they use to be.

Senator Kennedy, made the environment a big part of his 1968 presidential campaign. But it was more about regulations of energy industries and not so much about his own national energy policy. And had he been elected president in 1968, we probably get an EPA and perhaps an Energy Department as well. Instead of President Richard Nixon creating the EPA and President Jimmy Carter creating the Energy Department. It was also President Nixon that pushed for the idea of a national energy policy and getting off of foreign oil and gas. President Gerald Ford and President Carter, wanted to do the same thing, but differently at least in President Carter’s case. But making the environment a real issue was still very new when Bobby Kennedy ran for president in 1968.

Kay Jay: Washington Senators 1957 & 1959: A Little History of The Washington Nationals

Source:Real Life Journal

I'm not sure that a lot of lets say younger Washington Nationals fans are aware of this. But there's actually history of Major League Baseball in Washington with the Washington Senators. That goes back to the early 1900s, or even further back then that that lasted up until the original Senators left for Minneapolis in the early 1960s. To when Washington was rewarded another MLB franchise in the early 1960s. Lets call them Senators Two, that were basically counted on to finish last every year until they left for Dallas after the 1971 season. So before the Montreal Expose relocated to Washington after the 2004 season, MLB already had a long history in Washington and the Senators even won a World Series in 1924 and at least one other American League championship as well.

And they did play in the American League as well in the same league as the Orioles. Where the Washington-Baltimore regional rivalry could've started in the 1950s or 1960s. Instead just in the last few years as both franchises have struggled to become contenders and finally reached that status in 2012. With the state of both the Nationals and Orioles franchises and the fact they play in separate leagues. But play each in two series a year every year and into the indefinite future. With both clubs young and very talented and poised to be contenders for a very long time. The Orioles-Nationals, rivalry is not only going to be real, but a rivalry between two very good teams. Making baseball in the Washington-Baltimore region very good for a long time. And something fans of both franchises will look forward to every year.

The Senators, were like the Pittsburgh Steelers before the early 1970s when the Steelers finally became really good under Chuck Noll. The Senators, even though they actually had plenty of very good and great players, similar to the Steelers in the 1950s and 60s, were expected to and generally obliged to finish in last place in the American League. And again similar to the Steelers, the Senators from time to time would come up with a good team and have a winning season and perhaps even contend in the American League. But the Senators were always underfunded, because their ownership under Calvin Griffith and Later Bob Short, were always very cheap and had a hard time drawing fans to their games. But Washington, like most other big sports markets, tend to need good teams to watch in order to turn out for their teams.

The Senators, weren't losers because Washington was bad baseball city and market. They were losers, because they put a lot of bad teams on the field on an annual basis. Or wouldn't have the right manager, or coaching staff, or a combination of all of those factors. The Senators, wouldn't have left Washington either in 1960, or in 1971, had they simply been managed well and gave their fans reasons for coming to their games. Washington, was not the same city and market in 1971 that it is today. Its much larger today, but as the Redskins have shown when their teams commit to winning, their fans commit to them and turn out for the games. The Nationals of today, have a great ballpark and very good team, because their management is committed to winning and their fans are committed to them. The Senators, could have had that as well and still be here today.