John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Inter Planet Living: Janet Jackson- Rhythm Nation Breakdown: Sydney, Australia

Source: Inter Planet Living- Janet Jackson, Up Close and Personal in Sydney, Australia. 
"Janet Jackson performing "Rhythm Nation" - Number Ones: Up Close and Personal - Sydney, 8 November 2011" 

From Inter Planetary Living

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. 

Janet 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. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jettigree: '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 at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

Vadi: Video: Lady Channel: Catherine Fulop in Tight Leather Jeans: Some of the Style Differences Between European & American Women

This post was originally posted at FreeStateExtra on Blogger, June, 2011

Leather pants on women seems to be a lot more common in Europe, on the street and on TV there. Especially on their soap Operas and so-called reality TV and on the music performances. Especially skin-tight leather jeans, to me which combines the two worlds of leather and jeans, but they are leather jeans instead of denim jeans. For me this would be reason enough alone to watch European soap operas, especially in Germany and Italy. European women in Europe tend to be a lot more comfortable with their bodies and are more willing to take risks with them. Especially when it comes to skin-tight leather, like with leather jeans than American women.

Tight leather is a lot more common over there than it is in America. Where in America women love skin-tight denim jeans and we see them all the time on sexy women here. And they have become such a versatile pant that now women are wearing them to work, not just at manual labor jobs or in the entertainment industry. But at the office where wardrobes tend to be more conservative, but not so much anymore. Where we now see American women wearing tight skinny denim jeans to the office and not just on Casual Friday.

And we now see American women wearing tight skinny denim jeans with boots at the office. With either a suit jacket or a leather jacket. Where in Europe women wear tight leather jeans to work and at the office. Tight leather suits at the office and with boots. Tight denim is very revealing, but tight leather even much so and any mistake you make wearing tight leather jeans, people will notice in a big way. Especially with skin-tight leather jeans. Just ask Jim Morrison from his Ed Sullivan appearance. And European women seem to be more willing to take that risk than American women.

Both sexy American and European women love their tight jeans, the difference being that European women love their tight denim and leather jeans. They where both skinny denim and skinny leather jeans and they are just more common there than they are in America. You see them on the street and on TV and in the movies and not just worn by entertainers. But everyday women as well, they I believe tend to have more confidence in their physical appearance than American Women on average. And are more willing to take risks and as a man I wish leather jeans on women were more common in America. Because they are just as sexy if not sexier than Denim Jeans.

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: Video: Evan Sayet: "How Modern Liberals Think": The Differences Between Liberals & Socialists

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, May, 2013

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 lives.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Gary Johnson: Video: MSNBC's Alex Witt Interviews Gary Johnson in 2012

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, January, 2012

I don’t believe Gary Johnson is running for President, especially with the Libertarian Party because he believes he’ll 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.  
And the broader Libertarian movement and put them on the map. And to tell voters especially Independent and Libertarian voters, that there are other choices out there, than just the Democratic and Republican parties. And that you don’t have to settle for Democrats or Republicans. Or left to vote for a third party candidate that has no shot of winning. And feel left to wonder if you threw your vote away. But to encourage Independents and Libertarians that are anti- big government and believe in individual liberty, to "check out the Libertarian Party and make their political home there.
The Libertarian Party is the largest third party in American politics. But thats not saying much, considering they still lack the political access to be a major threat to Democrats and Republicans. But if you look at the libertarian movement in the Republican Party with Ron Paul and the liberal movement in the Democratic Party, that are against things like the War on Drugs, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, invading Iran, support legalizing marijuana, gambling, same-sex marriage and other things, there's a real movement for Libertarians.  
There’s enough voters out there for the LP, especially as young people tend to get more liberal and libertarian and tolerant as we move along as a society, that not this year and probably not by 2014, but within 10-20 years if the LP brings in these voters and recruits them to run for public office and recruits credible political candidates people that are actually qualified for the public offices that they are running for, something that the LP hasn’t always done, that the LP could become the official third party in America.
Gary Johnson’s Presidential Campaign is not about winning in 2012. But promoting the LP and broader Libertarian movement in American politics. And if they can get Ron Paul to drop the GOP and join the LP, they would have another credible candidate to join the cause. And build the LP to the point that it could take on Democrats and Republicans and actually win.

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: O.A.R. Ep. 7- Liberalism

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.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Malcolm X Network: Video: Muhammad Ali: "Why I Refused to Go to Vietnam

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, May, 2013

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. 

But also 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. 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. 
And what African-Americans were going through and wasn’t going to take trash 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: Video: Thomas Jefferson American Republic

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, September, 2013

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.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Brad Cartwright: The Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist Debate

Source: Brad Cartwright- Liberal Federalists-
Source: Brad Cartwright: The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists Debate

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 where 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.

Friday, September 26, 2014

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

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, July, 2013

Build it and it will come, which is a famous line from a baseball movie. 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, than their 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.  
Montreal Olympic Stadium 

Easton: Video: Bill Lee: Who Killed the Montreal Expos

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, April, 2013

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: Video: The Great Debate About the Role of Government: Thom Hartmann vs. Michael Medved

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress, May, 2013

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: Blog: Anthony Gregory: The Real Liberal Heritage: What Makes Liberalism Different From Libertarianism & Progressivism

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democrat
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.

Human Events: Opinion: John Stossel: "The Economy Needs no Conductor": How to Create an Opportunity Society

This post was originally posted at FreeStatePlus on WordPress, April, 2012

There’s been this endless debate in America in the last few years about what creates economic and job growth. Is it the private sector or public sector. Does government actually create any jobs, well the answer to that question is yes. In the sense that they create government jobs that can contribute to private sector job growth, by rewarding contract to the private sector that then hire additional workers. To perform the new work that their contract requires, to complete the new work. 
But what really creates jobs, is consumer demand. When people need to buy things or want to buy things and have the money to do so, then they go out and buy those things, which leads to economic and job growth to meet the new consumer demand. The way to create job growth, is through economic growth. And government can help and hurt in several ways.

They can help buy keeping taxes down, so consumers have money to spend.

Only having needed regulations that can be understood and doesn’t make employers jobs even harder. And make their cost of doing business more expensive.

And they can help with things like infrastructure investment that creates work for construction companies and builds and repairs, new roads and bridges around the country. So people can get around in an efficient way.

They can help with Energy Policy, by allowing the American energy industry to capitalize and produce all the natural resources we have in America.
Where government can hurt the economy, is through over taxing. For example passing Tax Hikes on people who can’t afford to pay them. So now they have even less money to spend.

Over regulating to the point that no one understands the regulations and they aren’t even be enforced. Because government doesn’t even understand them.

And they can hurt the economy by overspending. Running up huge debt and deficits, driving up our interest rates. Making everything more expensive for everyone. Which results in everyone spending less money. Which is what happened in the recession of the early 1980s and early 1990s. And they can hurt by not trading enough and over taxing private companies. Making their cost of business more expensive.

Its really consumer demand thats what drives economic growth, that leads to job growth. So as long as people have incentive to spend money and have the money to spend, then they’ll do those things. So what government can do, is try to ensure that consumer spending is always high. That we always have a need to spend money.

Cletus Hunnicutt: '1972 Year in Review'

Source: Cletus Hunnicutt-1972, oh what a year!
"News highlights of 1972. Presented by the Longines Symphonette Society. "The news, the events, the personalities as they happened as you lived them." 

1972 was a great year, well for my family anyway, because it was the year that my brother Alex, who won't go nameless, was born. And what a year to be born in and even on this day being in the middle of the Vietnam War, anti-war movement, Watergate, the 1972 presidential election between George McGovern and Richard Nixon, a year of disaster movies like Skyjacked, The Poseidon Adventure. Two great movies, Skyjacked with Charlton Heston and many other great actors and The Poseidon Adventure with Gene Hackman and many other great actors as well.

The 1970s was an interesting time to begin with. The whole decade, there didn't seem to be one slow year in the whole decade. We were either at war, in recession, or going through one political turmoil after another. So my brother didn't pick a dull year to be born in and it was a great time to be alive of you really wanted to be living will all the changes in culture with all the great movies and music and sports. Awful decade as far as the economy and perhaps people's quality of life. But a great time to be alive if you could afford it.

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

Keith Hughes: 'US Federalism For Dummies- American Government Review'

Source:Keith Hughes- dishing out and chopping up federalism. LOL
"For the discerning dummy and smart smart people, this video is designed for AP American Government students, College students lost in the wilderness in a political science course and just crazy people on the internet with nothing better to do. WARNING, I there is a tiny mistake, I mistakenly said the Supremacy Clause was in Article V, as we all know it is clearly Article VI.

Love history? Come "like" / follow HipHughes History on Facebook! Play games like "Bad Rhymes" and "Who the Hell am I"? Get you name on the scoreboard and if you're really good win swag prizes like online cred, swag and gansta bragging rights!

Click below for links to tons of edu content creators sure to make you brain twice its size.
Subscribe to my fellow EDU Gurus!!"  

From Keith Hughes 

Federalism for dummies or for people who aren’t capable of learning anything important or staying awake unless the lesson is given in an MTV like format especially in our valley pop culture world. But Keith Hughes does a very good and accurate job of describing what federalism is in his video. 

Any real Liberal or Conservative should be a Federalist or at least respect federalism, especially if they are in state government or a state politician. Or even a U.S. Senator in Congress representing their state in Congress, because federalism is about allowing for the states to managed their own affairs and telling the Federal Government to get out-of-the-way that "even though you are the most powerful government in the country, you are not the only government in the country and that the states and localities have responsibilities and powers and people to serve as well so they should be allowed to do so". 

I’m a Federalist, but a Liberal Federalist in the classical sense that I believe the states should be able to manage their own affairs, just as long as they are within the United States Constitution. Meaning they are serving their people equally and and not discriminating against their residents based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality. And that they aren’t trying to start their own military or create their own currency. 

I’m not anti-government or even anti-Federal Government. It’s just that in a country of three-hundred and ten million people with fifty states that is in between, two oceans, I mean America is a huge country in many ways, plus with all the political diversity that we have, that you must have a limited not small, but limited Federal Government to only conduct the affairs that effect the country. 

Our Federal roles have to do with national security, foreign policy, terrorism, interstate crimes, interstate commerce. But that the states and localities should be able to conduct the affairs that they have responsibility and the knowledge for: like education, health care, public housing, public assistance. And that the Federal Government can come in to assist and to see that everyone is being treated fairly. But not try to run the public services for each state on their own as if they have all the power.

Federalism or limited government is not about anti-government or small government. At least from a liberal perspective, but that in a liberal democracy as huge as America is, you don’t want to centralize so much power in one authority because of course absolute power corrupts absolutely. And you want the state, locals and more important people to have the power to be able to manage their own affairs as well. 

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

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Rusty Staub: Video: Rusty Staub Visits Montreal: Jarry Park, the Former Home of the Montreal Expos

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, July, 2013

One of the first mistakes that the Expos made was moving out of a baseball park in Jarry Park and moving into a football stadium in Montreal Olympic Stadium that is huge. That people didn’t like watching baseball in and if the Expos needed a new baseball park, a football stadium that was fairly well-suited for football and soccer, was not the way to go. 
But instead build a modern Jarry Park for the Expos, or perhaps a dome stadium where the roof opens. But design it for baseball, which is how the Montreal Olympic Stadium was supposed to be designed for in the beginning. What the Expos got instead in the late 70s was a football stadium with a roof that didn't open and a concrete hard astroturf field in Montreal Olympic Stadium. Just the Expos were starting to become pretty good. And the franchise probably would’ve been saved in Montreal with very good teams. That Montreal and the Province of Quebec would’ve supported.