Ederik Schneider Online

Friday, January 13, 2012

The Atlantic: The Wire: Jon Stewart to Jon Hunstman: The Hunt is Over!: When Your Campaign is Over & You're The Only One Who Doesn't Know it

Jon Huntsman has spent the better of the last six months campaigning for votes  in New Hampshire, The “Live Free or Die State”, a state that should play well for him and his classical liberal leanings and managed just 17% of the vote. Finishing seven points behind the 2nd place finisher in Ron Paul. GOV. Huntsman was going after the sane vote in the Republican Party. Apparently most of those people voted for him, congratulations. Huntsman is clearly a very sane and common sense presidential candidate. "These are the problems, this is how I would try to solve them". 
Instead of spending years debating the issues and looking for absolute power, he would actually try to solve problems. I give him a lot of credit for that, his problem however is not only is he in the wrong political party for his politics, (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson what thats like) but he’s looking to appeal to sane, credible, intelligent common sense voters. In a party that's dominated by Religious and Neoconservatives.
Jon Huntsman is running for President in a party where a lot of base cares more about a candidates position on condoms, adultery, pornography, same-sex marriage, gambling, than they do who’s got the best economic and foreign policy’s. It's like searching in a mental hospital for the sanest people there, that don’t work there. Finding a couple of people who are about to be released and than wondering why there are so many crazy people here. It's a mental hospital for Heaven Sake!. 
As GOV. Huntsman likes to say on the campaign trail. What were you expecting to find, college professors. And that's the state of the GOP right now, there too many crazy people for a common sense classical liberal or conservative presidential candidate there. Personally I believe Jon Huntsman would make one hell of a Liberal Democrat. In the sense of what liberalism really is and not how its stereotyped today.

And when the clock finally goes off in his head and he realizes that his time is over in the GOP, I believe he should consider a 3rd-party bid. Not to win because that's not going to happen. But just to let the American voters who are fed up with out two-party System, that there's other options out there and people who think like them.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

"3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now!": The Wars are Over



My three reasons for cutting Defense Spending now but as a Liberal and not a Conservative. Well I actually have more then three reasons but in the interest of time and anyone who' reading this. That I want to keep awake, I'll start with three and see what happens from there. Number one, The Wars are Over! Or at least our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Which means we can close those bases, bring those troops home and use that revenue to pay down the deficit. Number two, we are currently defending Developed Nations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. That all more then have the resources to defend themselves. The European Union's economy is roughly 14T$ or so, not far off from the United States. Saudi Arabia a country of 25M people but a very large country and Energy Independent. And has Living Standards comparable with Israel, Turkey and the European Union. Japan has the third largest economy in the World, of over 4T$. And thats after spending the last twenty years in recession. Number three, and the most important reason we now have a 15T$ National Debt that equals our Gross Domestic Product. In case anyone reading this doesn't know what GDP stands for. And a whopping 1.8T$ National Deficit, we also have an improving economy.

With Job Growth starting to take off and the Unemployment Rate finally falling. Now is the time to cut back in areas that we don't need to spend as much. And can't afford to spend as much and the Defense Budget has to be part of that package. Along with the rest of the Federal Budget. If there's a positive thing about having a National Debt and Deficit thats as high as it is today. Its that it tells us that we simply don't have unlimited resources and can't borrow indefinitely. That you can't spend everything on everything and don't have unlimited money. That you have to pay for things that you need to do. And cut back in areas you don't need to spend as much, the Defense Budget would be one area. Reforming the Tax Code would be another, Corporate and Agriculture Welfare would be others. And the Safety Net would be another one, we simply can't afford to subsidize people who can take care of themselves. In Foreign Nations or at home, there's a limit to what we can spend and what the Federal Government can do. Thats one thing that Limited Government is about.

America needs to learn as well as the rest of the World, that even America has limits to what it can do in Foreign Policy. And that if the rest of the Developed World, wants positive things done. It needs to step up to the plate, especially the European Union to play its part. Instead of dumping most of its resources in their Welfare States. Or the positive change won't happen, because America won't have the resources to do everything on its own.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Damon Root on FBN Freedom Watch: How FDR Contributed to the Libertarian Movement



There are several people that the Libertarian, Classical Conservative and Liberal Movement. Have to thank for putting the Political Movements on the map in American Politics. Franklin Rossevelt for bringing Progressivism and Democratic Socialism to America from the Federal Government. As well as his Authoritarian Policy's on National Security. Like with locking up German, Italian and Japanese Americans up during World War II. Because of their ethnicity that they believed they would back Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan because of their ethnicity. I mean FDR was Big Government almost across the board, which is my I have mixed feelings about him. And used the "Great Depression" and World War II to exercise great Executive Power that most Presidents wouldn't of had the guts to use. Its hard to label FDR a Liberal Democrat, because he would take Individual Liberty away from Innocent People. Other then on Economic Policy, its hard to label FDR a Progressive Democrat. because of his record on Civil Liberties which wasn't very good. You could label FDR a Neoconservative on National Security but nowhere else, he really didn't have a Political Label that fit him. Which makes him one of the most fascinating American Presidents we've ever had. And because of his Big Government credentials, is a reason why the Libertarian Movement came about. Along with the LBJ Great Society in the 1960s.

The Libertarian Party and perhaps the modern Libertarian Movement came about around 1971. To fight back against Big Government and challenge the Constitutionality of Big Government in the Court System. And brought about people like Harry Browne who ran for President for the Libertarian Party several times. Ron Paul who ran for President for the Libertarian Party in 1988 and is running for President for the Republican Party right now. And Classical Conservatives like Barry Goldwater, who was the Republican Nominee for President in 1964. Ron Reagan who became President in 1980. Dwight Eisenhower who was elected President in 1952. Gerry Ford who was House Minority Leader, then later Vice President and President. Younger conservatives like Jack Kemp who served eight terms in the House and ran for President for the Republican Party in 1988. Newt Gingrich who of course later became Speaker of the House. Trent Lott who served as House Minority Whip, Senate Leader and Minority Leader. Sen. Al Simpson and others. The New Deal and Great Society sparked a new modern Libertarian Movement and made Conservatism mainstream in American Politics. To fight back against Big Government.

Libertarians, Classical Conservatives and Liberals such as myself have Franklin Rossevelt to thank for keeping our movements alive. And give us something to fight back against. An Intrusive Big Government that tries to protect the American People from ourselves and take care of us. Instead of letting us have the Individual Liberty to do those things for ourselves. Progressives can thank FDR for bringing Democratic Socialism to America but thats about it. I doubt they agree with FDR on much more then that.

Friday, January 6, 2012

No Child Left Behind: "A Decade of Failure": Enough Said But Wait



In 1995 basically right after the brand new Republican Congress the first one since 1953, came to power. The House and Senate with Bi Partisan Support, passed a law that would outlaw Unfunded Mandates. What are Unfunded Mandates you might ask, they are Mandates passed down from the Federal Government. To the State and Local Governments, without paying for them, telling them you have to do this. Whatever this is without paying for it, Special Education and Medicaid. Are perfect examples of Unfunded Mandates, because Congress has failed to fund their own laws. The Federal Government's portion of those laws and by law the States and Locals have to make up the difference anyway. Thats what Unfunded Mandates are and a reason why I want to take Medicaid which is Health Insurance for Low Income people. Low Income workers and Unemployed Workers, off of the Federal and State Budgets all together. And transform it into a Independent Non Profit Health Insurer, with each State having their own version of Medicaid. That would have to meet basic Federal Standards, just not longer run by the Feds and States. Make Medicaid Self Sufficient and Self Financed but Medicaid is for a different blog. I just laid out the main problem with the 2001 No Child Left Behind Law, an example of what can happen. When Bi Partisanship goes wrong, because it combines the ideas from two different sides. But instead of combining what would work together, it just basically slapped ideas together.

The Late Sen. Paul Wellstone a Progressive Democrat from Minnesota, who I have a lot of respect for. But who I agreed with about maybe 20% of the time if that, but mostly only Social Issues. Was one of the most honest Members of Congress, sorta the Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul of the Senate. Voted against NCLB, not because it didn't spend enough or it didn't try to take over the Public Education System in America. But because it was an Unfunded Mandate, he voted against it for Common Sense reasons. He knew Congress would never fund the Federal Mandates in NCLB. Should the Federal Government have a role in Public Education, sure because a well Educated Workforce. Is a National Priority but it should be limited, we don't even need a US Education Department. We should pass a lot of those resources and powers down to the States. Combine what's left of the USED with the Human Services Department and have a National Director for Education Policy. In the White House who would serve as the Presidents Chief Adviser for Education Policy.

The Federal Government when it comes to Education Policy, should be there to make sure Constitutional and Civil Rights are enforced. It should be there for research, this is what works, this is what doesn't work. Pass that information on down to the States and Locals and help Under Served Communities fund their Public Schools. Be there to help make up the difference and let the States and Locals do the rest. As long as they are within the US Constitution.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

"The GOP's Struggle for Identity in 2012": Big Government vs Limited Government in the GOP



First to correct one thing from this video, there's no such thing as a "Big Government Conservative". Thats a borderline Oxymoron, Conservative in a political sense. Means Conserving Individual Liberty not subtracting from it, so if your a Social Conservative. You believe Conservative Social Liberty and are concern about things like Civil Liberties and other Social Liberties. Your not someone like Rick Santorum who believes that one of the problems with America is that we have too much Social Liberty. That we need to subtract from that and instead encourage people to good things. And that Government and Christianity decides what these things are, similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran. But they are governed by a very fundamentalist view of Islam not Christianity. Rick Santorum is actually not a Social Conservative, if he was he would be like Ron Paul. But they are night and day on most Social Issues, Rick Santorum is a Religious Conservative. Someone who uses their Religion to Govern their View of the World and that we should all do what God would intend us to do. Based on what they feel God wants us to do and that for us to do the Work of God, we need Limited Liberty not Limited Government. Rick Santorum's idea of Individual Liberty is that Free People should be able to live freely. As long as they are living in a way that he approves essentially. Which I believe is a very dangerous Political Ideology in any Liberal Democracy.

Thats one side of the current Republican Party, there's another Worldview that Free People should live Freely. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. Thats the Ron Paul Libertarian Faction of the Party that Jon Huntsman subscribes to a lot of that as well. Instead of government trying to put people down because of what they watch on TV, what music they listen to. Whether they have live in girlfriends and boy friends that they aren't married to. Whether they have kids without marrying, whether they are attracted to people of the same sex or not. Gamble your own money, smoke pot whatever the situation is that doesn't effect anyone else. If your doing these things, in the mind of a Religious Conservative. Your immoral basically but in the mind of a Classical Conservative, Libertarian or in my case a Liberal. Your a Free Person living your own life making what you believe are the best decisions for yourself. And its basically none of governments business, as long as your not hurting anyone else with what your doing. These are two of the competing Political Factions in the Republican Party right now.

The Religious Right basically won Iowa with their candidate Rick Santorum getting as many delegates as the guy who won Iowa. In Mitt Romney but of course Iowa is very friendly ground to Religious Conservatives. They are the South Carolina or Mississippi of the Midwest but New Hampshire is the Live Free or Die State. Not in God We Trust and is very friendly territory for Classical Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals. And this will be a big opportunity for Ron Paul.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Ron Paul 2008: Ron Paul- 'New Hampshire Primary is Wide Open:' The Liberty or Death State

Source: Ron Paul 2008-U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas-
Source: Ron Paul 2008: 'New Hampshire Primary is Wide Open'

If you look at the current national polls as far as New Hampshire, Mitt Romney in a 4-5 candidate field. Has about 40% of the vote right now, which is a pretty good number. New Hampshire of course is a neighbor to Massachusetts, so this should be Romney Country because they know him. And 40% of the vote right now suggest that there's at least a certain amount of support for him. But here's the opening for New Hampshire for Ron Paul. What's New Hampshire's state motto? "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." Sounds pretty liberal and libertarian to me. It's not in God We Trust or Give me Economic Liberty or Give me Death. It's, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." They are a classical get big government out of our wallets and bedrooms state. Which is why Rick Santorum is not making much of a play there, even though he''ll have a stronger presence. Because of his performance in Iowa, because Rich Santorum is a classical big government Republican. He's not a Classical Conservative or Libertarian.

Back in the day New Hampshire would be a great State for Mitt Romney politically, because thats the type of Republican he used to be, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." Until he decided he wanted to be President of the United States. And that he concluded he needed Religious and Neoconservatives behind him to do that. People like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. He doesn't believe he can be elected President without those people unlike Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, that have decided they aren't in that crowd. So the hell with them just like Barry Goldwater. What Ron Paul's message in New Hampshire should be, is go straight to the Liberals and Libertarians. Speak about economic and foreign policy mainly. And if social issues come up, fine. That will be his audience and nail the other candidates for their big government credentials. Mitt Romney is trying to be every Republican to every Republican and doesn't have a core. And wants to have an even larger military and foreign policy presence than President Obama.

And the 2010 Affordable Care Act was inspired by Governor Romney things the New Hampshire Republicans aren't going to want to hear when they decide how to vote for President. If Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich both raise their statures in New Hampshire, without taking votes from each other, but taking it from Romney, this could be 2-3 man race in New Hampshire. Instead of a New Hampshire blowout for Romney. Same thing for Jon Huntsman, speak to the people that can win New Hampshire for you. And in a state like New Hampshire there are plenty of those voters and let Mitt Romney have the big government Republicans. Right now it looks like a blowout victory for Mitt Romney, but there's still at least one debate away and plenty campaigning left for limited government Republicans to change that. If thats exactly who they speak to and not go after the Religious and Neoconservatives, where in New Hampshire there just aren't that many voters. Remember, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

"Sen. Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum: The Big Government Credentials of Rick Santorum



The only two anti Big Government Presidential Candidates in the Republican Party, are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Everyone else believes in some form of Big Government, Rick Santorum perfect example of that. Sen. Santorum voted to double the size of the US Department of Education. And voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit in 2003, Medicare Advantage, where we've borrowed 500B$ to pay for it. Sen. Santorum left Congress in 2007 after he lost by a landslide to Bob Casey for reelection. But still Sen. Santorum voted for hundreds of billions of dollars all borrowed. To pay for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Sen. Santorum voted for the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention. He supports a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw from the Federal Level abortion and Same Sex Marriage. Rick Santorum's Big Government credentials are very solid, if your a Progressive or a Neoconservative. There are things about Sen. Santorum to like, if your a Liberal like myself. Except for Santorum's honesty, character and his family, I do like the guy personally. But except for Sen. Santorum's approach to dealing with poverty and reforming the Safety Net. There's nothing I like about Sen. Santorum but in a sense I'm glad he's doing as well as he's doing in Iowa right now. And he and Rep. Paul tonight have prevented a cakewalk for Mitt Romney aka Flip Flopper. To winning the Republican Nomination for President and for that I congratulate him for that.

What Sen. Rand Paul is doing I believe is positioning himself for 2016, if he does not run for Reelection to Senate. And decides to run for President himself or not. Assuming President Obama is reelected which is not a safe assumption but looking at what he may face in the General Election. Because for one reason the Republican Party will at least be somewhat divided going into to September. Because whether you like and respect Sen. Paul's father or not and I do respect both Ron and Rand paul. Ron Paul will not be elected President of the United States at any point. The Republican Party won't allow that, the establishment doesn't see him as electable against the President. And Religious and Neoconservatives doesn't like him period except on Economic Policy. So he won't get the Republican Nomination, Mitt Romney probably will but if not him. Then who and thats what these Republican Primary's are about right now. And assuming its not Ron Paul, what I believe his son Rand is doing right now. Is positioning himself around his father, for a possible run for President in 2016 or 2020. And trying to get the Ron Paul Base behind him.

Rick Santorum is the ultimate Big Government Republican, I think only Michelle Bachmann is scarier when it comes to Big Government Republicanism. With her support for banning pornography in America and that women should behave men and be 2nd to them. And thats what Sen. Paul was pointing out tonight about Santorum his Big Government credentials.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Ron Paul in Iowa: "Liberty, Prosperity & Peace!": You better believe



Happy New Year to everyone and congratulations on surviving it so you can read this blog

One thing I respect about Rep. Ron Paul and we agree on a few things and have similar positions on several other things. And disagree on several other things but when Rep. Paul says he believes in Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. You should believe him because when he talks about Individual Liberty. Thats what he's talking about is exactly that, the Individual Liberty for Free People to live their own lives. As they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with what they are doing. Its that simple thats what Individual Liberty is about. Only Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman speaks in these terms. The other Presidential Candidates in the Republican Field, are speaking to Religious and Neoconservatives. Ron Paul speaks about Limited Government, the other candidates, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann especially, speak about Limited Liberty. Wanting to limit through the US Constitution by amending it if they have to. To limit the Individual Liberty of Free People to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they are not hurting people with what they are doing. If this was 1992 or 1980, maybe even 1996, Ron Paul would have an excellent chance. Of winning the Republican Nomination for President, because back then the Religious and Neo Right didn't run the Republican Party. But Conservatives were running the GOP, thats how Ron Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican Nomination for President. When Conservatives don't run the GOP, we get George W. Bush instead as our President. A Neoconservative Big Government Republican.

I'm not a Ron Paul Supporter, I wouldn't Legalize Heroin and Cocaine, Marijuana would be as far as I would go. And then get users of Heroin and Cocaine out of Prison and into Drug Rehab instead. And thats an example of one issue that I disagree with Rep. Paul on but if it takes Ron Paul winning some. Republican Primary's to prevent a cakewalk for Flip Flopper to the GOP Nomination for President. Instead of Mr. Flopper working hard for the GOP Nomination. Then so be it, like with Paul pulling out Iowa tomorrow night, Rick Santorum Mr. Neoconservative himself. But at least he's not a Flip Flopper finishing second and Flip Flopper finishing third. And Paul being able to use Iowa to build momentum for New Hampshire. A State with strong Liberal Libertarian Leanings, a State that if Paul wins Iowa. Could use that to win New Hampshire. Thats how we keep Flip Flopper from winning the GOP Nomination, President Obama with the economy improving will beat Flopper. Because the country at least knows where the President is on the issues. With Mitt Romney it depends on how the weather is, especially with how the wind is blowing. What's popular and unpopular.

The key to stopping or at least slowing down the Romney Train, is beating him in Iowa tomorrow night. And for Ron Paul to at least finish 2nd in that race. Because if that happens, New Hampshire comes in play for Paul, again because of the State. They are Liberal and Libertarian not Religious or Neoconservative. Which is why Rick Santorum doesn't have a snowballs chance in Arizona of winning New Hampshire. But a State like that is perfect for Ron Paul.