Youth Justice NC: North Carolina's School to Prison Pipeline

Source:The FreeState

If you look at our current prison inmate population, you’ll see a lot of prison inmates who didn’t finish high school before they came to prison, or barely finished high school. If you look at a lot of our juvenile inmate population, kids that should be in school, but because of their bad behavior and committing felony’s while still being juveniles, or have been expelled from high school. You see a lot of juveniles that our education system hasn’t reached yet. 

You see people who are headed down the road of starting criminal careers and entering our criminal justice system as adults. After they’ve committed crimes against society. If you look at our criminal gangs, organized crime families, you see a lot of people who dropped out of high school to become a criminals. And of course end up in jail or prison at some point in their careers.

So I believe the answers to solving the problems of overcrowded prisons and bringing down our prison population in the future are fairly simple. But hard to apply and it gets to public education. Quality public education, graduating more students from high school with good educations, so they can move on to college, vocational school, the military, law Enforcement, foreign service, to use as examples. 

So they can go down the road of becoming productive citizens in society and not becoming criminals by simply preventing crimes in the future by preventing people from becoming criminals. And that gets to a better public education system, including educating our juvenile offenders before they become career criminals. Crime prevention really is about public education. 

I would argue especially for students in low-income high crime areas. Where there may be more opportunities to get involved in organized crime. So the better we educate our students and the more students we reach, the less career criminals we’ll have in the future.

Young Americans For Freedom: Ronald Reagan Addresses Young Americans For Freedom (1975)

Source:The FreeState 

Back in this time period of 1974-75 just as then Governor Ronald Reagan was leaving the state house in California and looking into running for President in 1976, he described his politics as libertarian. His politics were very similar to Barry Goldwater. These were both "get big government out of our wallets and bedrooms" Republicans and Barry Goldwater would probably be called a Libertarian today. 

Ron Paul comes the closest to Goldwater-Reagan today. Foreign policy would be where they are different and both Goldwater and Reagan believed in at least some forms of taxation as well. And would be probably be excuse the term, but this is how it is. Shitting bricks if they were alive today and saw what had happened to the GOP. If Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan were alive today, instead of seeing a party that they built a lot of it on themselves, a party that was around to fight big government. 

Instead Reagan and Goldwater they would see a party that was promoting big government. Thanks to the religious and Neoconservatives and all their new big government ideas. With their borrow and spend fiscal policy of the last decade. Pushing things like a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage. Marriage are you kidding me, states rights getting kicked out of the house on that one. Moving to outlaw condoms, birth control, pornography, heavy metal music, gays and women in the military. And this is why we have a Libertarian Party today and why Republicans have left the LP. Also because of some of the big government progressivism in the Democratic Party.

As we are getting younger and more tolerant as a country, we are getting more liberal to libertarian. Which is something that only the Far Right doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to accept. Perhaps what they are thinking is if they ever get back in power, they’ll outlaw some of these things in law. Meaning if the country believes in these things, they’ll never allow it to become law. Take a look at Egypt and Syria to use as examples. But these things aren’t going to happen, because the Far-Right will probably not get back into power in the Federal Government. Meaning running all of it, with the new changing demographics, the adults need to step up in the GOP and recognize these changing demographics and move in these directions, to save the GOP.

Because of the Far-Right, Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan couldn’t get elected nationally by the GOP today. They would both be treated like Ron Paul. Sort of like how Mitt Romney is treated like George H.W. Bush. Who would’ve fit in very well in the Republican Party 20-30 years ago, even forty years ago. For the Republican Party to stay a major political party in American politics going forward, the adults in the party need to step up and take control of the party. Take it away from the Far-Right, kick out the Theocrats and Neoconservatives. And bring back Independents and Libertarians who like their economic policies. Otherwise the GOP will go down as a Far-Right third-party.

Max Power: The Kitchen Debate: Richard Nixon vs. Nikita Khrushchev

Source:The FreeState

The friendly TV debate that then United States Vice President Richard Nixon had with then Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev, was entertaining and important to the extent, that at least America and Europe could see some of the differences between the superpowers. That America wasn’t just a Superpower when it came to our military and diplomatic power. But we were an economic power as well. And that Russia was basically a third world nation, behind the rest of the Developed World in a lot of areas. 

That Russia's living standards were much lower than Europe, Canada and America. And this had to do with the fact that Russia was a communist state and America is a liberal democracy. The main reason why America, Canada, Europe and Japan were so far ahead of Russia during the Cold War and now, has to do with the fact, that we are free. We are all democracies economically and socially. We all have plenty of freedom to live our own lives. 

And in America especially where Europe tends to be more generous with their safety nets, Americans tend to be held responsible with the decisions that we make in life. Wheres the Soviet Union, most of the power in the country was centralized with the State. They were held with most of the authority to govern the country and responsible for looking after their people. Providing them with jobs, education, healthcare etc.

Vice President Nixon did an effective job in this debate of laying out some of the differences between America and Russia and where we were ahead of them and with space. Where Russia was ahead of us, which we turned around in the 1960s and debates like this are important. Especially if they are done in a respectful way.

Human Events: John Stossel: The Economy Needs No Conductor

Human Events: Opinion: John Stossel: The Economy Needs no Conductor  

Source:The FreeState 

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.

Patrick J. Buchanan: The Socialist & The Social Darwinist

Source: Patrick J. Buchanan- Saul Alinsky-

Source:The FreeState

As much as President Obama may campaign as a Progressive Populist who runs on class warfare and someone who believes in “soaking the rich” to take care of the rest with Federal social programs, he’s not. You gotta remember Barack Obama is a politician. The President that Progressive Democrats want him to be, is not the President he is. If he were that President and candidate, wouldn’t of gotten elected. 

The Ralph Nader’s and Dennis Kucinich’s of the World, can’t get elected President in today’s America. The way President Obama is campaigning is to appeal to so-called Progressives to get their vote, what he’s telling them is that. "We have the same or similar goals". but then governs differently to accomplish those goals, to do it in a way that he believes works. President Bill Clinton used the term Opportunity Society, thats how he ran for President and how he got elected President, which is creating a society for everyone that gets a good education, works hard and is productive. 

Low-income people who have been left behind in the economy will have a solid opportunity, to make as much out of life as what they put into it. That not just the 10% of the population will be able to do well based on what they produce. But the other 90% of the country that works for the 10% will be able to do well in society as well. To be self-sufficient, get a good job and not live off of public assistance. Thats what an Opportunity Society is, a society of opportunity, good opportunities for all, that want a good education work hard and be productive.

An Opportunity Society is something that Barack Obama has been trying to create ever since running for President and being President. He’s not a Socialist, he’s not a Democratic Socialist. At best he's a Progressive in the FDR or LBJ sense, not today's sense. The main reasons why Progressive Democrats don’t like him, he doesn’t believe in soaking the rich to take care of everyone else. He’s a Liberal Democrat, a Moderate Liberal at best really, doing the best job he can in an economy, where we’ve basically been starting over.
Renegade: Noam Chomsky- Social Darwinism

The Book Archive: Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell; Pornography & The First Amendment

Source:The FreeState 

Interesting case whatever your position on pornography is whether you think it should be legal or not. Or whether you enjoy it or not which isn’t the question. But the real question in this case is should it be legal or not based on the United States Constitution and what also makes this an interesting case is that it affects two amendments to our Constitution. Which affects our right to free speech and expression and our right to privacy. 

The First Amendment which of course guarantees our right to free expression and speech. And our Right to Privacy what people are able to do in their private lives and own homes. And does the rights to free speech and expression as well as privacy include pornography. Do Americans have the constitutional right to be involved in pornography or not. And manage their own private affairs themselves. Or does government have the right and responsibility to intervene in one's own private affairs.

Prison Reform Movement: Teshia Naidoo: Sane Drug Laws: How California May Finally Stop Prison OverCrowding

Source:The Free State  

California is the perfect example of why and how the War on Drugs in America is stupid. This is a State thats swamped in debt, that still has double figure unemployment. That still has a high crime rate and one of the highest inmate populations per-capita in the country as well as the largest inmate population in numbers. They are also one of the highest taxed states, so if I was a Californian I would be asking why, I’m not getting much of a bang for my tax bucks. 

And yet California has been doing the same things for the last ten years. They recalled GOV. Grey Davis partially because of its debt issues and the economy wasn’t doing very well. Ten years later they are still facing the same problems and have even more people locked up in this State. If I was a Californian, I would want my State Government to look at what its doing. Admit the obvious finally and change course. Find ways to get more out of the taxes that Californians are forced to pay every year. And its corrections system, probably the most expensive in the Union, is a great first place to start and overhaul it. 

Start with the War on Drugs, stop arresting free adults for smoking or possessing marijuana. Stop sending heroin and cocaine addicts to prison and get them in drug rehab at their expense. Stop sending non-violent offenders to prison who don’t represent a major threat to society. And get them in halfway houses at their expense. Stop sending these people to prison and save the prisons for the offenders who need to be there.

With GOV. Jerry Brown being a former Attorney General, he should know exactly how overcrowded their corrections system is and that it needs to be reformed and be more cost- effective. And hopefully he’ll put in the reforms to make that happen and save Californian Tax Payers billions of dollars.

Human Events: George Will: When Liberals Become Scolds

Source:The FreeState

Human Events: Opinion: George Will: When Liberals Become Scolds

I agree with George Will that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed America and changed the Left in America. But we disagree with how it changed Liberals and American liberalism, that really the Left changed. Now what is the Left, it is a group of leftist political factions including Liberals and Progressives on the Center-Left in America. But goes over to Democratic Socialists and Social-Democrats, people who came alive in American politics in a huge way in the late 1960s. In response to the Vietnam War and wanting to take on American capitalism, corporate America and deal with poverty in America in a huge way. 

The New Left wanted  to make America more like Europe and everything else, but as I said before it wasn’t Liberals that changed in America. But the broader Left which is what changed with Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats having a much bigger voice and influence in American politics. The death of President Kennedy was tragic in many ways and I believe most of them obvious. The fact that the President of the United States could be assassinated in a country that is as strong as America. 

But more importantly the tragedy it was for the Kennedy Family especially Jack Kennedy’s wife Jackie and their kids. But parents and siblings as well the entire Kennedy Family. But what is less obvious if you just look at it from a hard-core political point of view and the politics of it, is that it changed the Democratic Party and changed the Democratic Left in America. 

Because Jack Kennedy represented the transition from the FDR New Deal movement in the Democratic Party, to more of a movement about individual freedom and liberty. And what can government do for the people who need it so they can take care of themselves. Rather than creating new programs to take care of people instead. We’ll never know this of course, but had President Kennedy not had been assassinated in 1963 or ever, most likely he gets reelected in 1964 and finishes his two terms leaving in the solid Liberal Democratic leadership. 

And America does not get involved in the Vietnam War as far as trying to take it over and win the war for the South Vietnam. And there is no need for an anti-war-movement in the Democratic Party and the party is not divided in 1968 and yes there is a strong contest to see who replaces President Kennedy. Between Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Senator Hubert Humphrey and perhaps even Robert Kennedy. But not to the point that is would’ve risked Democrats losing to Republicans in 1968. The party would’ve been in much better position without the Vietnam War and the New-Left radicals on the march and so-forth.

The assassination of President Kennedy left a real leadership void not only in the Democratic Party, but on the Democratic Left. And instead of the country just moving forward and just addressing domestic problems like healthcare, civil rights and others, we get into Vietnam, we have race-riots because of the racism going on in the South and other places. Dealing with other issues like poverty and the New Left that came of age in the late 1960s comes alive to take the Democratic Party away from the liberal and progressive establishments that ran the party before.

The Street: Joseph Deaux: A Brokered GOP Convention is Very Unlikely

Source:The FreeState

If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know that a month or go or so I suggested that Rick Santorum end his presidential campaign and endorse Newt Gingrich. So the right-wing could unite behind one presidential candidate. And unite against what they see as a Damn Yankee Northeastern Republican. Who they believe doesn’t share their values, because he’s not a big Government republican looking to impose his values on the rest of the country. 

Senator Santorum doesn’t seem to be interested in social issues at all except when he talks to Religious Conservatives. Well all of these Far-Right big government groups are now backing Rick Santorum. Because they see him as someone who can win and will say whatever it takes to get their support, unlike Mitt Romney. Keep in mind these blogs about the Republican Party and the right-wing are coming from a Liberal Democrat who’s also a political junky. And a big reason why I blog about these things. 

But also keep in mind, without Newt’s lousy debate performance back in February, chances are he probably wins Florida or comes damn close. And the GOP establishment might be looking for a new frontrunner at this moment. And Newt might be the frontrunner that the rest of the GOP Is, pardon the expression, shitting bricks terrified about right now. But that didn’t happen, the bad debate in Florida, followed by the Romney attack machine taking him down. After that, ended whatever chances of Newt Gingrich winning the GOP nomination.

If Rick Santorum wins Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi, all of them Tuesday, Newt if he still gives a damn about the Republican Party would be smart to drop his presidential campaign. Endorse Rick Santorum and allow for Rick to build off of that momentum. And prepare for the Texas Primary. If Rick were to win Louisiana and Texas as well, we might have a new Republican presidential race. But with Rick and Newt competing for the same voters and everyone else voting for Mitt, Mitt Romney sails to the Republican Nomination.

The Weekly Standard: Daniel Halper: Newt Looking to Deliver Knockout Punch in Florida

Source:The FreeState

The Weekly Standard: Opinion: Daniel Halper: Newt Looking to Deliver Knockout Punch in Florida 

I don’t see Newt Gingrich delivering a “knockout punch” in South Carolina for Florida, but with Speaker Gingrich’s overwhelmingly victory tonight in South Carolina, it does change the political landscape for the GOP presidential race. Last week we I guess, the political pundits, were talking about South Carolina as the state that Mitt Romney is going to wrap up the GOP nomination for President. Because he had a big clear victory in New Hampshire. 

And all the momentum that Mitt needed to move on from there to get the GOP nomination and then move to concentrate on the President. Because Governor Romney was able to open up a big lead in South Carolina. So what happened, a few things. Newt has two great debates, Monday and Thursday nights last week. Mitt has a mediocre debate on Monday night and a bad debate Thursday night. Newt whips Mitt on the national stage where South Carolina is watching. Plus Mitt’s tax returns didn’t help as well.

My issues with Mitt Romney have always been with his honesty. Is he saying what he believes or what he thinks we want to hear. I believe Mitt is running for President for the right reasons. He believes America is in trouble etc and wants to help. And that his career in corporate America and experience can fix the problems. But Mitt has gone about it the wrong way, his whole strategy seems to be is to say "what it takes to get the job and then when you get the job" do what you think is right".  

That campaign strategy just doesn’t work in American politics. He just doesn’t seem to have a message of other, than he’s the best person for the job. But what he doesn’t understand, is to get the job you have to prove you're the best candidate for it. And Newt has capitalized on Mitt’s weakness’s at least for this week. Newt Gingrich should have some momentum going into Florida. And if he does well in the Monday night debate, may take the lead or pull very close to Mitt Romney. 

The Romney Campaign has already announced their strategy for taking down Newt and will have new attack ads focusing on Speaker Gingrich’s Speakership and leadership. And Newt is going to have to be prepared for that and be able to fight back against those political attacks and winning South Carolina should help the Gingrich Campaign with their fundraising. So Florida should be very interesting and as a political junky I’m looking forward to it.

National Journal: Ron Brownstein: Good News and Bad News For Newt Gingrich in Florida

Source:The FreeState  

National Journal 

What difference a debate can make, or how about, if you're a football fan, you're familiar with term, "live by the blitz, die by the blitz". Meaning for you English speakers, football teams that base their defense on blitzing, are successful and unsuccessful based on how they blitz. They do well and get burned by it and when you're a presidential candidate, who’s had most of his success so far based on his debating skills and quick wit and being able to turn things around on other people, you have to win the debates to win elections. 

You should have enough hints about who I’m talking about by now. And you have a bad debate, an off night however you want to put it, as a result you get burned by the debate, just like Newt Gingrich has had a lot of success in previous debates, practically winning all of them, Newt had such and off night last Thursday, he’s probably going to lose Florida tomorrow. And its just a matter of how much, 10 points being the key. Under or over for Newt.

The good news for Newt is that over weekend, he’s picked up some key endorsements. From Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, some Tea Party groups. Cuban Floridians seem to like him, that won’t pull Florida out for Newt. But may be able to keep Mitt Romney’s victory under ten points. And give the Newter Campaign with a floor in how far they can drop. So they rebuild their momentum going forward and be a factor in Nevada and other key states that are coming up. 

Especially in caucus states like Minnesota, where Newt’s style of campaigning, talking and listening to people up front, giving interviews and of course the debates and these endorsements could help Newt be a big factor in these up incoming primaries by getting people to the polls for him. The other good news for Newt is even though he’s fallen, Rick Santorum and Ron Pau haven’t given up and Newt’s been picking up some new endorsements. 

And there will be more pressure on Rick Sanrtorum to step down and endorse Newt. Especially if Santorum  has a bad night tomorrow. So Newt will still be able to target Mitt and go after the Santorum supporters and bring them with him. Especially if he beats the odds tomorrow night. And doesn’t get blown out in a Florida hurricane, pun intended.

Reagan Foundation: Video: 1980 Presidential Debate Between Governor Ronald Reagan & President Jimmy Carter, 10/28/1980

Source:The FreeState

How times have changed for the Republican Party. Because back in 1980 they actually did have a Conservative Republican leading their ticket. And leading them back into power in the White House and Senate. After spending another four years as they spent eight years, in the 1960s as the opposition minority party in the United States. With Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress. 

Back then the GOP had a Conservative Republican, because Ronald Reagan actually understood what conservatism is, which is how Barry Goldwater laid it out as conserving the individual liberty of individuals. Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms, letting free people live their own lives. Not using government to try to control how people lived their lives. Which is what we see with the GOP today, with its Religious and Neoconservatives. The same-sex marriage debate case in point.

This is the perfect time to be talking about Ron Reagan, since it would be his 101st Birthday this month. And since he was the best Republican President we’ve had since Dwight Eisenhower and the best Republican President we’ve had since. And George W. Bush being the worst President we’ve had since, well maybe all-time. Ron Reagan described his politics as libertarian as late as 1975. He backed Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. 

Politically its hard to tell the differences between Goldwater and Reagan. Except for maybe foreign policy, Reagan I believe became a classical Conservative, because what he saw in the 1960s what he saw as the growth of big government with the Great Society, but he also saw the growth of big government in the late 1970s, in California. That in 1978 passed a law that would allow employers to fire homosexuals just because they are gay. And he disagreed with that law.

The Christian Right came to power and influence in American politics in the late 1970s. Perhaps even as early as the mid 1970s, with Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Arguing against things like homosexuality and pornography, arguing for censorship of certain forms of entertainment, that of course they see as immoral. And even though President Reagan would talk to these groups, he played them like a politician, he knew he needed their votes. But never gave them anything, unlike Republican politicians today who don’t seem to be able to say no to these Far-Right big government groups. And thats how the GOP is different today.

Andrew Kaczynski: Video: C-SPAN: U.S. Representative Speaking Against the House Democrats Budget in 1982

Source:The FreeState

Back in the day when Newt Gingrich was a Junior Representative in the House and I would argue up to a certain extent even when then Minority Whip Gingrich became Speaker of the House, even though to a certain extent, getting in the bed with the Christian Right, Newt Gingrich was a Reagan Republican. Someone who believed in limited government and that Uncle Sam shouldn’t be telling Americans how to live their lives.  

Who believed in decentralizing the Federal Government and balances budgets, tax relief, strong defense, but he was more progressive than President Reagan on welfare policy. He did believe in welfare reform before it became popular. Where President Reagan basically just wanted to gut the safety net. But Representative Gingrich was basically a Reagan Republican in the 80s and 90s.

Three months ago I thought Newt Gingrich on paper anyway would be the best Republican to take on President Obama. Not just in the debates, but Speaker Gingrich would’ve had the Republican base behind him. And had he did a better job in the Florida debate in January. Maybe he’s not the frontrunner right now, but based on how he’s ran this his campaign ever since, its almost impossible to make a credible case that he would be the strongest Republican today. 

But unlike Mitt Romney, Newt is someone thats trusted by the entire Republican Party. By Reagan Conservatives, the Tea Party, Religious Conservatives, Neoconservatives. Even Libertarians have a certain respect for Newt. The thing you get with Newt Gingrich, similar to Barry Goldwater, is someone who speaks his mind and is not worried about offending people. Including Republicans, so he’s clearly not a smooth politician. Which is a big reason why he’s fallen down so far. Finishing fourth in one of the primary’s last week.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Newt Gingrich, Where is the GOP Headed

Source:The FreeState

Not really Newt Gingrich himself, but his movement and followers represented where the Republican Party was headed post Ronald Reagan. Not George H.W. Bush who succeeded President Reagan as President, but didn’t offer a vision other than maybe on foreign policy. Of where he would take the GOP with him. President Bush was more of an operator or pragmatist as President. 

George H.W. Bush took  issues and problems as they came up, but not having a set of ideas and policies, or direction where he wanted to take the Republican Party. Whereas Newt Gingrich and his Conservative Opportunity Society group had a vision where they wanted to take the Republican Party. That later became known as the Contract with America in 1995. Shortly after being elected to the House in 1978, December, 1978, Rep. Elect Newt Gingrich when House Republicans were still in the minority. 

The House HOP had around 160 or so seats during the Carter Administration. They put together working groups that would work on bringing a House majority for the GOP. Raising money recruiting like minded candidates, putting together and agenda. That they would try to pass, that later became the CWA of 1995-96. But it took them sixteen years to get there. But only he and his group believed they had any shot of taking back the majority. This was back in the day when the House Republicans had for the most part had around 160-180 seats, the late 1970s and 1980s. 

And House Democrats controlled the House since 1955. I don’t agree with Newt on much and he has personal characteristics that I don’t like, but I respect him a lot as a political strategist. Probably the best we’ve had since Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. He could see things happening that no one else could. Because he knew how to get there and deserves a lot of credit for that. 

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: Report of Tea Party Demise Premature

Source:The FreeState

Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Reports of Tea Party Demise Premature  

Two years ago when I started blogging about the Tea Party, I upfront blogged and predicted that the Tea Party was the Christian Right of the 1990s, with an economic libertarian message. But they still wanted to tell Americans how to live their lives and outlaw activities that are currently legal. Which is what we saw with Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. Where once Newt Gingrich lost any hope of being a serious Republican Candidate. 

A lot of Newt's support went to the Santorum Campaign, that already had Religious and Neoconservatives with them. Two years later I’m back to believing what I originally believed. As some of the Tea Party leaders, like Sarah Palin and Representative Michelle Bachmann who are both Religious Conservatives, which has basically become the same movement. When I saw people like Rand Paul of Kentucky, guess who is father is. Senator Rom Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah, all people with Conservative Libertarian leanings on Social Issues. 

These are not big government Republicans, getting elected to the Senate. Then I was thinking they have problems with things like the Patriot Act, indefinite detention. And the Federal Government regulating marriage, I thought damn I was wrong about the Tea Party. And glad I was, good news for the Republican Party and even though I’m a Liberal Democrat. I believe in having two strong parties, because I don’t want to see America become a one-party state. Thats not good for liberal democracy.

Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, even though Palin and Bachmann have lost influenced in the GOP, are 21st Century Religious-Right leaders. If Mitt Romney doesn’t get elected President in 2012, Rick Santorum will be the Frontrunner going into 2016. If he plays that right, which is all the evidence that you need to know that at least a big portion of the Tea Party has merged with Religious and Neoconservatives. And have become big government Republicans. 

There are still Conservative Libertarian elements in the Tea Party. Senator Paul and Senator Lee are perfect examples of that, but when the Republican alternative to be President is Rick Santorum, thats all you need to know that big government republicanism is alive and well in the GOP and not going anywhere The Tea Party when they first started had an opportunity to move the GOP back to Reagan conservatism. 

And not only give Republicans but also Independents people to get behind. And move the party past Bush Neoconservatism but with all the big government positions. They’ve now come out in favor of like outlawing pornography and same-sex marriage from the Federal level. They are now just the Christian Right of the 1990s. But with a conservative economic message.

Human Events: Ann Coulter: Fighting The Last War

Source:The FreeState

Human Events: Opinion: Ann Coulter: The Last War  

The Republican Party back in the 1980s and even before that going back to the 1930s and even farther than that, were a real conservative party. And why Libertarians use to be Republicans. The GOP  were the get big government out of my wallet and bedrooms party. That Big Government shouldn't be involved in free adults private lives. That people should be able to make their own decisions and then be responsible for the decisions that they make.

This was a party that could compete in the Northeast and Midwest and West. Back in the 1960s and before that, it was the Democratic Party that represented the Dixiecrats, the Christian Right and Neoconservatives. All these people who are now Religious and Neoconservative Republicans. The Republican Party use to be about both economic and personal freedom. Not just economic freedom for business and religious freedom for Christians, but the whole scale. That government shouldn't tell people how to live their lives. And outlaw things just because they don't like them, that was for limited government.

A party that believed in fiscal responsibility, strong, but limited defense. And a limited internationalist foreign policy. That was about about defending American interests not trying to police the World. How times have changed, this was the party of Dwight Eisenhower, Bob Taft, Tom Dewey, Everett Dirksen, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, Bob Dole. And today Olympia Snowe and Mitt Romney and many others would feel very welcomed in the GOP, where today they are now considered too liberal.

The Republican Party of yesterday that was about individual liberty. And a classical conservative party. Today is a Religious and Neoconservative Party that believes they know best how Americans should live their own lives. That as much as they claim to love America, they don't seem to love Americans and want to take the country back to the 1950s. So much to the point that Rick Santroum emerges as the presidential alternative to Mitt Romney. Because other Republicans like Mitt, like GOV. Mitch Daniels. Again who would've fit in perfectly with the GOP thirty years ago, and has a solid conservative record, is considered too liberal to run for President in the GOP today.

The Republican Party has become so Neoconservative and even authoritarian that Northeastern republicanism is dying in the GOP. Where Sen. Olympia Snowe who looks pretty conservative by traditional Republican standards, is essentially getting kicked out of the GOP. And not running for reelection, because she's worried about a primary challenge from the Far-Right. Even though 20-30 years ago, she would've fit in very well in the GOP. And considered a Conservative Republican. But today's GOP is so far to the right, that conservative looks liberal to them. So Sen. Snowe no longer fits in. 

The American Conservative: Daniel McCarthy: Why The Shutdown is a Disaster For Small-Government Principles

Source:The FreeState

I saw and interview on CNN’s The Situation Room today. And Wolf Blitzer who was interviewing Republican Representative Peter King, a Conservative Republican by any standard outside of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, who basically said this that he’s voted against the Affordable Care Act what Republicans like to call ObamaCare every chance he’s gotten. But for Republicans to get what they want they need more power. That they do not have the power to get what they want. Which is to eliminate the ACA and downsize the Federal Government to the vision that Barry Goldwater had for it when he wrote his famous book. And ran for President and when the modern Conservative movement lets say was being built in the 1960s.

The American people, in poll after poll have spoken about ObamaCare and said they still do not like the law. But aren’t willing to shut the government down just to see if they can repeal, or defund it. Which is what House Republicans are trying to do right now which is to see how can they push the American economy to the cliff, before Democrats retreat. And give them exactly what they want for the good of the country. The country has spoken about ObamaCare and they didn’t like it when it was passed. So the threw out sixty-two House Democrats where most of them probably voted for the ACA. And gave House Republicans a sizable majority for 2011-12. But the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken about the ACA as well and ruled it constitutional.

We had a general election in 2012, both the president and Congress and the American people spoke again. And reelected President Obama overwhelmingly the man who signed the Affordable Care Act into law and campaigned on it. When he ran for president in 2007-08 and ran on it again when he ran for reelection in 2011-12. Then you look at the Congressional elections, Senate Democrats not only still control the Senate, but added two seats to their majority. Again they all voted for the ACA and the members who were elected in 2012 support the ACA as well. A bill that is still unpopular in most polls in the country but gaining support. Republicans still hold the House, but lost eight seats and now are in danger of losing their majority all together in 2012. Thanks to the government shutdown over ObamaCare.

House Republicans, especially the leadership say well they were reelected to. The problem with that argument is that they weren’t reelected to do everything that they want to do. Their voters in their little House districts may have reelected them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare. But the rest of the country didn’t give them the power to do that. So it is very simple for Republicans going forward. We have a divided government, but Republicans have the smaller share of this divide. Which means they simply do not have the power to get everything they want. And for them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare, they simply need to take back the Senate and White House while holding the House. And they won’t get that opportunity until the 2016 general elections. Short of that, they need to work with Democrats on things they can work on, or risk losing whatever power they still have.

Search Engine: The Right Nation

Source: Search Engine-

Source:The FreeState

It is not classical conservatism in its real form that is the problem on the right-wing or in the Republican Party. That is real real Conservatism in a real political sense, not in a cultural sense. Which is how conservatism tends to be looked at in America to go along with small government economic views. And a military first foreign policy from Neoconservatives and an isolationist wing when it comes to foreign policy. From the Pat Buchanan wing on the far-right.

Conservatism in its real Barry Goldwater of big government out of my wallets and bedrooms conservatism, strong, but limited defense and a foreign policy that is not about policing the world, but being the leader in the world which is different, that real Goldwater/Reagan conservatism is in good shape in America whether it is back in 2004, or today as far as what Americans want and expect government to do for them.
Search Engine: The Right Nation 

James Miller Center: Video: President Gerald Ford, Address on Energy Policy 1975

Source:The FreeState

President Ford, showing a lot of leadership in 1975, taking on energy policy and even energy independence. Figuring out that the energy shortages of the early and mid 1970s were bad for the economy as a whole. Not just energy production, as well as our foreign policy having to rely on other countries that aren’t very dependable, to provide a huge superpower with energy. And that if America could produce more energy on our own, it would benefit both our economy as well as foreign policy. The Great Deflation, is how you could sum up the American economy in the 1970s.

Part of that having to do with the fact that even though America has about the most natural resources in the world, perhaps only Russia, has the ability to produce more energy for their own country than America and yet we were dependent on other countries for our energy supply. Because we haven’t up until lately, the last few years, done a very good job of developing all of our energy industries. Oil, gas, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind. We produce all of these resources and have the ability to be leaders in all of these resources in the world and become energy independent. But haven’t done a very good job of moving these energy resources along.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at The 1964 Republican National Convention

Source:The FreeState 

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right or Left, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party. It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Moderate Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for the White House now.