Janet Jackson: Cincinnati PNC Pavilion (2011)

Source:Philly BN Lou- Up Close & Personal With Janet Jackson, from Cincinnati, Ohio, in 2011.

"Janet Jackson

Number 1's Up Close and Personal Tour

8-11-2011

PNC Pavillion, Cincinatti

"IF"" 

From Philly BN Lou

Janet Jackson is simply one of if not the sexiest female performers live and in concert. Because she's a not just a singer, but a performer who is also a great dancer. And then you combine that with her beautiful baby-face appearance and the great body and how well she shows off her body and I don't know of a sexy performer right now. She is so professional and not just great onstage, but the work she does offstage to remain the great performer that she is.

If you have a front row seat to a Janet Jackson concert, that seat should be probably worth somewhere around a million dollars. Even if you are not a fan of her music and I like some her songs,  but not all of them. But whatever she's singing, she always looks great singing and performing because of talents and ability to both move and sing as a performer. And all of the work that she does offstage to stay in the great shape she's always been in. 

Also, no one moves and dances better, perhaps even as well, in skin-tight, denim jeans and boots, than Janet Jackson. And no one looks sexier in that outfit, or perhaps as sexy, then Janet Jackson. I almost feel guilty watching her perform for free.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Joan Jett: 'Do You Wanna Touch Me / Androgynous ( Live )'

Source:The New Democrat- Rocker Chick Joan Jett, at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, in Cleveland, Ohio.

"Joan Jett & The Blackhearts -  Do You Wanna Touch Me ( Oh Yeah ) , Androgynous Joan Jett , Kenny Laguna , Dougie Needles , Thommy Price , Enzo. Sinner , Nissan Live Sets 2008"  

Source:Jettigree- Joan Jett, live and in concert.

From Jettigre

Joan Jett hasn't been a great rocker chick for the 1970s, or the 1980s, or the 1990s, the 2000s, or today. She's been a great rocker chick for all of those decades and times, because she has a style and brand that is of her own that she has perfected and made work for going on forty years now. 

Joan first hit it big in 1977 or 78 when she was still a teenager and has been going on ever since. And her music is about herself and her own life and what she has experienced. And is real and she isn't someone who tries to be anyone else or has copied anyone else, or has needed to. She's the ultimate American original.

Songs like Hate Myself For Loving You and I love rock and roll, are about her and her own life. Her own experiences and not some copycat of some other performer that has made it big, or has just made it big and trying to copy of that so they sound hot or cool as well. 

Joan will never be mistaken for a girl band performer, the female version of a boy bander that became popular in the late 1990s. Because she has her own act and her own style. And wouldn't want to be part of that anyway.

Joan Jett is the ultimate rebel with a cause, because there really isn't any other rocker chick you can compare her too. Not least as one who has been nearly as successful and has been as successful for as long as she has. 

I'm not a huge fan of Joan's, I like a few of her songs, but the thing I respect most about her is how real she is and original she is. Who does her own thing whether it is considered hot or awesome by the pop culture establishment, or not. And she's taken a lot os risks and has been very successful as a result.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

Leather Beauty: Catherine Fulop- in Tight Leather Jeans & Boots

Source:Lady Channel- Venezuelan Goddess Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans.

Source:The Daily Post

"Sexy Catherine Fulop tight leather jeans"  

From The Lady Channel 

"Sexy Catherine Fulop tight leather jeans"  

Source:Lady Channel- Venezuelan Goddess Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans.

From The Lady Channel 

"Another post from "A" if you checked out my other blog LB2 you'll find he's been helping me get back to the blog- here's some screencaps of Catherine Furlop starring in a Argentine Drama Dejate querer (Which translates as" Let Yourself Be Loved") .. not sure what I'll do with LB2 (it's kind of like a back up blog) but I realized there were gaping holes in some of the posts so I thought it's probably for the best I return to these pages."  

Source:Leather Beauty- Venezuelan Goddess Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans.

From Leather Beauty 

"Another post from "A" if you checked out my other blog LB2 you'll find he's been helping me get back to the blog- here's some screencaps of  Catherine Furlop starring in a Argentine Drama Dejate querer (Which translates as" Let Yourself Be Loved") .. not sure what I'll do with LB2 (it's kind of like a back up blog) but I realized there were gaping holes in some of the posts so  I thought it's probably for the best I return to these pages."  

"Catherine Fulop de calça de couro"  

Source:Anonymously- Venezuelan actress Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans.

From Anonymously 

This is from a 1990s Venezuelan soap opera that Catherine Fulop was on. I believe this scene takes place at her home on that show, but I don’t know much about it. 

Source:Leather Beauty- Venezuelan actress Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans.

Several different looks at Venezuelan actress/goddess Catherine Fulop in her skin-tight, black leather jeans, that wore on that show in the 1990s. But that’s about all I know about this photo.

Source:Leather Beauty- check out Catherine Fulop, if you can catch her.

From Leather Beauty 

I have to hand it to any attractive, sexy woman, who is even willing to wear skin-tight, leather jeans. Especially skin-tight, black leather jeans. If you want to know what skinny leather pants look like, they're leather jeans. They look just like skinny denim jeans, but made from leather instead of denim. 

The thing about skin-tight leathers is they're very revealing and make people look really honest about themselves. 

If you are someone like a Catherine Fulup when it comes to women physically and you have the long beautiful, tight legs, and big, beautiful, tight, round butt, you are going to look like a Goddess in black leather jeans. 

If you are underweight, perhaps you don't have much of an appetite, perhaps you have high metabolism, you are terrified of food, perhaps even allergic to it and struggle to keep on weight and muscle, you are going to look like a stick-figure in skinny leather or denim jeans. 

If you are overweight or obese, perhaps I don't have to fill you in as far as how fat, ridiculous, disgusting even, you are going to look in skinny leather or denim jeans. 

The reason why skin-tight, leather jeans have never really caught on in mainstream, pop culture for women, outside of rock and biker culture, and few famous, popular celebrities from time to time, is that a lot of women don't have the look for those pants, or aren't willing to take the risk as far as how they would look in those pants in public. Perhaps they are even worried about looking too sexy in them and getting checked out constantly, sort of like wearing a mini-skirt and heels to the office. 

But American women, or least sexy American women, have always at least since the late 1970s with the start of the designer jeans revolution have always been comfortable showing off their bodes in skin-tight denim jeans. And with designer jeans coming back in the late 1990s with the low-rise and skinny jeans in the 2000s, with curves and strong legs becoming so popular and still are today, American women are now more than comfortable showing off their bodes in skinny denim jeans, especially with how versatile denim is with you being able to dress denim jeans up or down. 

So when you see a woman like a Catherine Fulop out in public in skin-tight, black leather jeans, or see someone like that on TV or in a movie and you are a guy, you should be very thankful that she's even willing to dress like that in public and take note of it. Because it might be a while before you see another woman like that who is dressed like that again. 

Leathered Life: Sexy Women in Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life - Leathered Life model Lena. 

"Many girls in leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Love Lena, the beautiful baby-face adorable curvy brunette in this video. To me at least she's the top model at this web site, I guess called Leathered Life. Sarah, very beautiful and cute, but sort of has an average body and none of the other models in this video got much of my attention. But Lena is pretty special and a goddess in black leather jeans and looks great in those jeans with boots as well. And I just wish this was more footage of her and that she did other projects.

Leather jeans at least on women, are a lot more popular in Europe than in America. American women love skinny denim jeans and even skin-tight skinny denim jeans. But if they wear leather pants at all, they tend to be like dress slacks or leggings.

Leather jeans outside of biker and hard rock culture, are not that popular in America. Leathered Life and the company Miss Sixty that makes leather and denim jeans are the exception to that. But leather jeans for men and women are pretty popular in Europe.

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Heritage Foundation: Evan Sayet: 'How Modern Liberals Think'

Source:FRS FreeState 

As an actual Liberal myself and not someone who just calls myself a Liberal, but someone who actually understands liberalism and not someone whose called a Liberal by people who couldn’t tell the difference between liberalism and communism, which a lot of partisan right-wingers aren’t able to do today, as if they couldn’t tell the difference a whale and an ant, I go out of my when I can to explain the differences between liberalism classical or modern and socialism or Anarchism.  

Because todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’ which is a term that I do not like. Its is mixed in socialism as it relates to the economy, with anarchism as it relates to law enforcement, national security crime and punishment, terrorism etc. And paternalism when it comes to personal choice issues. Like how we can communicate with each other, political correctness, what we can eat and so forth. But only tend to be actually Liberals when it comes to civil liberties, but that "government has a protective role, prohibition even". And they’ve added tobacco, junk food, soft drinks to their list of things that they would like to be outlawed, or seriously regulated and taxed in the United States.

The people who I described as ‘Modern-Liberals’, are not actually Liberals. But perhaps European Social Democrats would probably the be most correct way to describe them. Even though they tend to like to be called Progressives. But they are way to the Left of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman, perhaps even Henry Wallace and certainly Lyndon Johnson. All of these men all had a healthy skepticism about the role of government in our lives and understood the limits of what government could do for us.  

Today’s Progressives (I call them that for now until I find a better term) do not seem to have a healthy skepticism about what government can do for people. Except as it relates to civil liberties and perhaps the War on Drugs. And the men I described believe in the role of authority, not to run our lives, but to protect us from people who would do us harm. Criminals, foreign invaders, terrorists to use as examples. This seems to be the only area that todays Progressives seem to be skeptical about governmental power in our lives and that it should be limited.

The easiest way to probably label me politically would probably be to call me a Classical-Liberal. But unless that means you are talking about someone like a Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Democrat up until the New Deal came around in the 1930s and then saw the Democratic Party moving in more of a socialist direction and then left the Democratic Party to run for President as a Republican in 1940. Or Jack Kennedy, I do not like the term Classical Liberal to describe my politics. Because the term classical-Liberal tends to be used to describe Libertarians. 

And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m not anti-government, just anti-big government both as it relates to economic policy, but also personal issues. And I do not want government trying to run our lives for us. So I just prefer the term Liberal or Liberal Democrat even, which I Certainly am to describe my politics. Not in the classical or modern sense, but in the real sense. As someone who believes in Liberal-Democracy, individual freedom both economic and personal. To go with individual responsibility.

The basic difference between Liberals and todays Progressives has to do with the role of government . Todays Progressives simply want a lot more of it especially at the Federal level and want less personal choice. Because they tend to see it as dangerous and that "people with a lot of freedom will make more mistakes". Where Liberals again believe in individual freedom both economic and personal to go with a quality education and opportunity for all. To be successful in life and then be held personally responsible for what we do with our own live

Gary Johnson: Alex Witt Interviews Gary Johnson (2012)

Source:MSNBC- Alex Witt interviewing 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.

Source:The Daily Times 

"Visit Uncensored TV to watch videos related to Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, John Stossel, Jesse Ventura and more.

Alex Witt Talks with Gary Johnson - July 7th (2012-07-07)

From:MSNBC." 

From Gary Johnson 

I don’t believe Gary Johnson is running for President, especially with the Libertarian Party because he believed would be elected President of the United States in 2012. Or even have a good shot of being elected President. The LP simply doesn’t have the ballot access needed to win enough votes for their presidential candidate to be elected President. But that hopefully Gary Johnson is running for President especially for the LP, because he wants to get more attention and publicity for the Libertarian Party.

Janet Jackson: If, Scream & Rhythm Nation

Source:Elio Blas- Janet Jackson, up close and personal, in Paris, France, in 2011.

"Janet performing 'If+Scream+Rhythm Nation' at L'Olympia in Paris 27/06.
Amazing concert!!"

From Elio Blas

Source:Janet Jackson- Uo Close and Personal.

Just to speak very personally and frankly for a minute and then I'll go back to being a distant lier. Ha, ha, but checking out Janet Jackson up close and personal, which was the title of this album, feels like a great Christmas gift. With that voice, that body, her in those tight Levis black denim jeans, the boots, that belt, the tight black t-shirt, makes me want to get down on my knees and thank God I'm a man. Or at the very least get down on my knees and scream, yes!!! At the top of my lungs.

Janet is one of the cutest, sexiest, sweetest, singers and performers you'll ever see and she's still only like forty-eight years old. Obviously not a little girl anymore, just with a face that makes her as cute as a little girl. And then you throw in that she's a hell of a writer and singer who sings about her real life as a person and what is going on in the world around her. As attractive as she is. her professional talents as a dance, singer and writer or just as great.

Janet Jackson is not a one-hit wonder or a bimbo whose famous because of who her father is. And there are plenty of women and men who are and I'm sure you are already aware of this, unless you've grown up in Afghanistan or some place that is completely isolated from the world. There are plenty of people who are famous because of their parents. Janet comes from a great music family, but she's been as successful as she's been unlike some of her siblings because she's a great talented performer.

Alannah Myles: Black Velvet (1990)

Source:Alannah Myles- Black Velvet (1990)

“Music video for Black Velvet performed by Alannah Myles .”

Source:Grammy- Alannah Myles Black Velvet.

From Alannah Myles

I first saw Alannah Myles black velvet in late 1990 or early 1991 when I was a freshmen in high school. And I was blown away by the video. The blues rock sound was about as good as anything I’ve ever heard from Eric Clapton and Bruce Springsteen, my two favorite blues rock artists.

I was also blown away about how sexy Alannah looked in the video. The concert footage of the video with her in that black leather motorcycle jacket and the black leather chaps, over black denim jeans and the black leather biker boots. She looked like a classic rocker chick in the video and the way rocker chicks should look.

VH1 played this video from when it came out in 1989-90, to early 1992 or so and the song did very well. But the thing that I’ve never understood about Alannah is how come her career isn’t bigger.

With that beautiful blues sounding voice that goes great with blues and classic rock and how well written Black Velvet was written. I’m not an expert on the music business obviously, but you would think those qualities and her beautiful sexy look, would’ve led to more opportunities.

Alannah Myles career to me at least is a “what could’ve had been”. Because she is a talented writer and singer, but her career just quite hasn’t taken off. Joan Jett who I do like, whose been in the business going on forty years now, is not as good as Alannah. They have slightly different sounds and Joan is more of punk rocker than Alannah. But Alannah has a better voice and has better music, but right now over twenty years later , she’s basically a one hit wonder. She is known for Black Velvet and that is about it.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

Tammy Rose: Hot Biker Babes Take on The Boys

Source:Tammy Rose- Biker men vs biker women.

"Real Riders, Real Friends, Real Stories' Chopper Show Promo."

From Tammy Rose

Professional career women and no not that kind of professional women that you might be thinking about, (stop thinking with your dick) but real professional women who have college degrees and are perhaps cops, teachers, doctors, construction workers, bankers and so-forth. Who work hard and are productive during the day and week. But also no how to have a good time at night. Beautiful sexy biker babes on the weekend and perhaps at night. 

This is what sexy women look like and are. Not that all sexy women are biker women, but women who are intelligent and do not need to be sexy to make a good living. Do not need to work on a street corner trying to sell their bodies and satisfy their pimp. Or have to work at a strip club to make a good living, but real women  with real intelligence. Who also happen to be beautiful and sexy and are because they take care of themselves and know how to have a good time. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

Mal Partisan: O.A.R.: Liberalism- The Philosophy of Individual Rights & Freedom

Source: Mal Partisan- Dr. Martin L. King-

Source:Mal Partisan 

I’m a Liberal and when I hear the term ‘Modern Liberal’ today it makes me a little angry. Because today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ would be called Socialists in any other country. Because they have a collectivist view of society and believe that government should always be looking out for the society as a whole, even protecting people from themselves. Both an economic and personal point of view, instead of allowing the individual to make their own decisions. Today’s so-called ‘Modern Liberals’ are really collectivists or Democratic Statists if that makes any sense. Instead of Liberals or perhaps even Progressives.

When people hear the term Classical Liberal and they are pretty familiar with American politics, they tend to think of Libertarians, but the problem with that is that Libertarians tend to be anti-state and anti-government really all together. Liberals aren’t anti-government or even anti-Federal Government, but we are anti-big-government. We don’t want government trying to manage our own lives for us and invading our privacy. We want government doing the things that we can’t do for ourselves. And that isn’t practically everything for us and it is not practically nothing either.

If you read the Far-Left or what are called Progressive blogs and publications today and I read them online everyday, they have a role for government to do practically everything for us. They come short as far as nationalizing the entire economy, but would nationalize some industries and nationalize some things that state and local governments do as well. But liberalism or classical liberalism is not about a big state. But having a liberal amount of freedom as well as responsibility for the individual. 

Liberalism is a very pragmatic and mainstream political philosophy especially in America. Even though it would be viewed as pretty radical in most of the rest of the world. Canada, Germany and Switzerland would be exceptions. But it is about defending and expanding freedom for the individual and seeing that we all have freedom over our own lives until we hurt innocent people and that is when our freedom would be taken away. But that all of us have the opportunities that we need to live in freedom. Creating an opportunity society for everyone.

Muhammad Ali: 'Why I Refused To Go To Vietnam'

Source:Iconic- The Greatest of All Time: Muhammad Ali.

Source:The Daily Times 

"Muhammad Ali on his decision to not joining the US army." 

From Iconic 

"My conscious won't let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what?  They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn't put no dogs on me, they didn't rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father... Shoot them for what? ...How can I shoot them poor people, Just take me to jail." 

Source:Kaotik Calm- The Greatest of All Time: Muhammad Ali.

From Kaotik Calm

One thing that I respect about Muhammad Ali is that no one pushed him around, for the most part. Except for Don King perhaps with all the money he screwed Muhammad out of as his promoter in the 1970s. And Muhammad perhaps the most famous athlete in the world not just in the United States in the 1960s, who was at the heart of the American civil rights movement because of his race. 

Because of Muhammad's intelligence and the attention that he could bring to himself and because of how honest he was and wasn’t nice to the American establishment no matter the race, who knew how to get exactly what he wanted. And always said exactly what was on his mind so when he said he was against the Vietnam War in the mid 1960s. Like most people in his generation and was not going to fight against a country that never harmed him. Or denied him his freedom and constitutional rights because of his race and his complexion to fight against a country that never hurt him.

Muhammad wasn’t going to fight for a country that was trying to hold him down and when he said: "I’m not going to fight for a country that’s been trying to hold me down, because of my race to fight against a country that never called me Nigger". and so-forth and he was being honest and serious. Muhammad was the Malcolm X of professional sports as far as someone who knew American history and the state of the African-American community. 

Muhammad knew what African-Americans were going through and wasn’t going to take trash (to put it mildly) from anyone and be pushed around. Just like Malcolm X even if it meant his life. Malcolm was assassinated something that Muhammad has avoided. Muhammad was going to live his own life and try to help people that he felt he could and make a positive difference where he could and because of his intelligence. And his personality that he wasn’t going to sacrifice his own freedom and his own constitutional right to stand up for what he believed even if it meant getting his boxing career back, to fight for a cause that he believed was unjust.

What you see in this interview is Muhammad Ali being himself. And the interviewer bringing up for example all the money that not taking part in being drafted into the U.S. Army to fight in the Vietnam War and so-forth and losing his World Heavyweight Boxing Championship and his boxing license and the millions of dollars that came with that and Muhammad saying that: "Yeah, I could have that". But I’m not going to take it at the cost of my freedom. Muhammad Ali wasn’t going to be bought. 

The History TV: Thomas Jefferson American Republic

Source:FRS FreeState 

There is a debate in the United States about what is America according to our own Constitution. Are we a republic or a democracy, the fact is we are both, but then why are we both and how are we both. A republic is not necessarily democratic or authoritarian, but it is a republican form of government, small r. Where the people are governed by civilians for the most part, not by the military or a monarchy or religious leaders. But you can have democratic republics and you can have authoritarian republics. 

America is a democratic republic, China is a communist republic to use as examples. A lot of times when people tend to think of democracy, they automatically think of voting the right to vote and majority rule. But the fact is that is only one aspect of democracy. Democracy even depending on what type of democracy, what you are talking about is about freedom and people having freedom over their daily lives and not being harassed by government because they are seen as enemies of the state like in Syria, Egypt or Iran.

America is a federal republic which means we have a federal government as well as state and local governments. Rather than one big government that essentially runs the entire country which is common in authoritarian states. But even at least to a certain extents in big government social democracies. Where a lot of power is centralized with the national government. America is a federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy where not everything is done by majority rule. Elections for the most part yes, but where we are governed by a large extent by a Constitution with three branches in the Federal Government. 

As well as our state and local governments that have responsibility for seeing that our Constitution is equally enforced. Where we all have constitutional rights that are supposed to be equally enforced. So we can’t lose our constitutional rights just because they may seem unpopular or get in the way with whatever the current party in power has planned for the country. 

That is what Thomas Jefferson and the other Liberal Democrats who are our founding fathers created more than two-hundred and thirty years ago. A federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy that comes with a lot of individual freedom. Set responsibilities and authorities for government, but where their number one responsibility is to protect our freedom and constitutional rights equally under law.

Brad Cartwright: 'The Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist Debate'

Source:Brad Cartwright- with a look at the Federalists.

“FILLING THE GAP between what the IB EXPECTS you to do and how to ACTUALLY DO IT in the IB ECONOMICS classroom!” 

From Brad Cartwright  

Federalist: “The supporters of the proposed Constitution called themselves “FEDERALISTS.” Their adopted name implied a commitment to a loose, decentralized system of government. In many respects “FEDERALISM” — which implies a strong central government — was the opposite of the proposed plan that they supported. A more accurate name for the supporters of the Constitution would have been “NATIONALISTS.” 

Antifederalist: “someone who is opposed to a system of government in which power is divided between a single central government and several regional ones: Many voters are …

Federalist sounds like someone whose against a loose form of government, where power is heavily divided between the national, state, local government’s, and the people. But the opposite is true. The Antifederalists of the late 1700s, were the people who opposed the U.S. Constitution and our form of government. They pushed for a strong, centralized, nationalist, form of government. Not the Federalists. And even Brad Cartwright in his video, gets that mixed up as well.

I like what the guy said in the video that we have a federalist form of government, but where the Federal Government is part of that system, but not the only government. That we don’t have a unitary government that is common in Britain, Egypt and perhaps Russia, where so much power is centralized with one central authority. And you have states or provinces, but really only in name only, but not without much authority over their own affairs.

In the American form of government, the Federal Government is obviously part of that. But our states and localities are real as well with real power over their own affairs. With the ability to govern themselves, with the Feds being able to aid with federal funding. But the Federal Government is mainly there to handle national affairs. Like national security, foreign policy, terrorism, interstate crimes, regulating interstate commerce. Interstate infrastructure would be another good role for the Federal Government. 

But in the Federal system, the states have the authority to manage what happens inside their own borders, just as long as they are within the United States Constitution. With the Federal Government handling the issues that effect the whole country like as it deals with interstate crime and terrorism and interstate commerce. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

City TV Official: 'Expos Should Come Back to Montreal'

Source:City TV- Elias Makos.

Source:The Daily Times 

"Could the Expos come back to Montreal? At the newly-dedicated Gary Carter Stadium in Ahuntsic, Elias Makos shares his point of view." 

From City TV

Build it and it will come, which is a famous line from a baseball movie. But Montreal needs a modern baseball park that can support the team and allow for the team to be popular there. And then the people of Montreal and the Province of Quebec need to support this franchise, with a management group with the resources and commitment to winning and baseball can be successful in Montreal and always be there. 

But even if that all happens and that is still and if and a major if, Major League Baseball with the way it is currently set up with twenty-nine franchises in America, would probably not be the right home for the Expos. Not saying that they should be a AAA club. But playing at least half of their games every year in another country and taking long road trips to play just their division games in the National league or American League like they use to, might not work again. 

If Canada wants professional baseball again, let alone major league baseball, then they're big cities, including Montreal, needs to step up and say: "We are ready for professional baseball again and perhaps even Major League Baseball". And build their own Canadian League with MLB being part of that and expanding in Canada. Eight to ten clubs in Canada with two divisions and a national series. 

If that were to work, then MLB might be able to expand in America again to support the new CBL and you could see an MLB-CBL merger and create a real North American Continental Series to decide the pro-club championship of North American baseball. But putting the Expos or whatever the new Montreal club would be called back in the National League or moving them to the American League long-term, I don't believe would work again. 

Canada needs to step up with major league caliber ballparks in their big cities, like Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and perhaps even in Toronto the Blue Jays long-term and put the Blue Jays in this new major Canadian league to be able to compete long-term with America when it comes to Major League Baseball. And the way pro baseball would succeed again in Canada and be there indefinitely.  

Bill Lee: Who Killed the Montreal Expos?

Source:Montreal Gazette- former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee.

Source:The Daily Times 

"Former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee reminisces about his time in Montreal." 

From the Montreal Gazette

"Former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee reminisces about his time in Montreal." 

Source:Montreal Gazette- former Montreal Expos pitcher Bill Lee.

From the Montreal Gazette

To put it simply, what killed the Montreal Expos was lack of support. Lack of support from the fans by the late 1990s they were drawing 5-10K fans a game for their home games. And Expos fans might say that the team wasn’t very good, but when you're only drawing 5-10K fans a game and you do not even have local media contracts like TV and radio, its hard to have the resources to put good teams on the field.  

But even with the lack of support from the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec, Montreal was a solid, but never a great baseball market in the late 1970s and 1980s and to a certain extent in the 1990s. But by the late 1990s when you are only seven thousand fans a game with is a AAA minor league crowd, you aren’t going to have the resources to compete with the big clubs that are consistent winners who are drawing thirty thousand a game or more like the New York Mets and Atlanta Braves. (To use as examples)

Then you throw in the fact that the Expos were basically stuck playing their home games in a football stadium that was built for the 1976 Summer Olympics, that held sixty five thousand fans after moving from a baseball park in Jarry Field, you are now playing in a big stadium where people do not want to go to watch baseball. But would go to watch Canadian football and rock concerts. 

But not a very good baseball environment where the seats were far away and where people in Montreal had better things to do. And you add that baseball is probably the third or fourth most popular sport in Montreal behind hockey of course, but football and even soccer. The Expos weren’t built to last at least in Montreal Olympic Stadium. Had they ever gotten a real ballpark that seated 35-40 thousand fans and had a management that was committed to winning and staying in Montreal and spending money, but spending money wisely, the Expos are probably still in business today.

Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved: Debating The Role of Government - Part 2

Source:Free State MD

I think both Thom Hartmann and Michael Medved hit it on the head in their opening statements and perhaps the first and last times they’ll agree on anything in their lifetimes and they are about the same age. But they said it as well as it could that this debate is really about what the role of government should be in America. And they both said that the role of government should be about protecting our rights and that’s exactly what the role of government should be. 

So then the question should be what are our rights. And what Americans have the right to in America and the right to life is exactly that we as Americans have the. Right to our own lives and the right to live our own lives. Not run the lives of other Americans or harm or take the lives or run the lives of others. And that it’s the job of government to protect our right to live our own lives. Not to run our lives and try to protect us from ourselves or to try to say what’s good for us and what we should be doing with our own lives. But protect our right to live our own lives.

This means that we have the right to freedom, but not that freedom is given to us by government or anyone else, but that we have the right to get the freedom for ourselves to live our own lives and we have the right to live our own lives as long as we aren’t infringing on the rights of others who are innocent from, living their lives. In other words hurting innocent people.  

Where government comes in is to regulate how we interact with each other so we aren’t hurting innocent people. But not there to run our lives or protect us from ourselves and the other role of government is to create and keep up an environment where we all can use the freedom to live our own lives. And that means things like an effective and affordable infrastructure system. Universal access to quality education and a safety-net for people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system so we can get on our own feet and take care of ourselves.

That’s really the only right that Americans have the right to. Life and the right to live in freedom and live our own lives and. The only thing that government has is to protect out rights to life and freedom. And everything else that we get in life has nothing to do with our rights to those things that we get. But we get things based on what we do with the freedom that we have and the freedom that we have is based on what we do with the opportunities in front of us to live in freedom.  

Mises Daily: Anthony Gregory: The Real Liberal Heritage

by Ederik Schneider

Source:FreeState Now

A lot of Americans when they think of Liberalism and Liberals, they probably tend to think of people who believe in a big state in the form of the federal government that collects a lot of taxes. Because these so called Liberals do not trust the states and individuals to make their own decisions wisely. And that the Federal Government would spend those resources better than the states or individuals. And that we need a big state and high taxes to have as just of a society as possible so no American is left behind. 

As a Liberal myself I can tell you there’s nothing liberal in what I just wrote there. But what I just wrote there is what social democratic parties in Europe or the New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Social-Democratic Party, or what Social Democrats in America tend to believe people we tend to call Progressives. Who build their political philosophy around what government can do for the people. Rather than what can the people do for themselves if they just have the opportunity to do so.

A lot of Americans when they tend to think of Liberals, tend to think of MSNBC and its lineup and hosts and guests. Other than maybe Chris Matthews, as a Liberal I do not recognize a single Liberal on that network. Occasionally they’ll have a liberal guest like Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the U.S. Senate. But generally that network tends to showcase people as far to the left as Ralph Nader or Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. 

Current and former Progressive members of Congress and todays so-called progressive-activists. MSNBC represents the Green Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. And in a lot of cases so-called Progressive Democrats who are only in the Democratic Party to have a major voice in a leftist party. But most of the money in the Liberal Democratic Party as you could call it, is raised by and for Liberal Democrats to keep them in power and elect them to office. With Progressives trying to get what’s left.

To actually get to what Liberalism is and why I’m a Liberal. Liberalism is about the individual and protecting the individuals freedom to be able to make their own decisions and choices. Both from an economic and personal point of view. Not putting so many restrictions on them so they can’t make bad decisions at all. Which is what you tend to get from both the Far-Right and Far-Left in America.  

Its not the job of government to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from those who would do us harm which is different. That if you put all of the information out there, people by in large will make the right decisions regarding their own personal and financial lives if we are all educated with all of the good information and facts as possible. Which is why we should subsidize success and freedom and not try to stop people from making bad decisions. Just try to stop and punish people who hurt the innocent.

Liberals are not anti-government, which is what todays Libertarians tend to sound like. But we are also not pro-government, which is what todays Progressives sound like. We have a healthy skepticism of what government can do for us better than what we can do for ourselves. Which is why we want government limited to only doing the things that we need it to do. We even believe that government should help the disadvantage in society. But empower them to be independent and be able to take care of themselves. Rather than making and keeping people dependent on government for their financial well- being.