Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, June 29, 2012

A Taxing Distinction For The Affordable Care Act: The Difference Between The Taxing Authority and Commerce Clause

Of corse President Obama and Congressional Democrats argued that the Individual Mandate is provision to require people to purchase Health Insurance. Is a regulation thats Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which not even the Liberal Justices were buying and why they were calling it a tax. Which is exactly what it is and no one should have a hard time admitting that or understanding that but that just goes to the weakness of Barack Obama as President, looking at it from a political lens first. And trying to show people that he didn't raise taxes on anyone, including the Middle Class, which of course because of this tax is not true. But you gotta understand what kind of a tax it is and who it effects, people who have decided not to pay for their Healthcare. And pass those costs onto people who do not only pay for their Healthcare but for the Healthcare of people who can't afford to pay for Healthcare or have simply decided not to. Young professionals who are already making a good living and don't believe they will ever be sick or need Health Insurance. And have decided not to because they are healthy now and why pay for something that they don't need right now.

If you are already covered by Health Insurance, you aren't going to get hit by this tax. If you can't afford Health Insurance, you aren't going to get hit by this tax. But if you can't afford Health Insurance right now, you have a choice you have to make, either sign up for the Tax Credit. To purchase Health Insurance by yourself with the Tax Credit, take the plan that you now have available at work to pay for Health Insurance, that will now be offered because of the Tax Credit for employers. Or sign up for Medicaid, it depends on what you are making financially, Medicaid is for Low Income people, not lower Middle Class people who aren't poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid. So what Chief Justice Roberts did yesterday, was to bail out the Obama Administration, so they wouldn't have to call the Individual Mandate a tax. And stated the obvious and called it exactly what it is.

Had Chief Justice Roberts taken the advice from Justice Antonin Scalia of calling the ACA exactly what it is by how the law is written. The law gets thrown out yesterday, because the argument for the ACA is that its a regulation and therefor Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. What John Roberts did was call the Individual Mandate exactly what it is, he called a pig a pig or whatever thing you want to use. He called it a tax and therefor ruled it to be Constitutional.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Is There a Silver Lining to the Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision: Libertarians Respond to the Supreme Court Decision On The ACA

There are a couple things that Libertarians can take away from the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA today. That it wasn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which will make it difficult for Progressives to expand the Federal Government and its power as it relates to the economy in the future. Which as a Liberal myself I agree with because I don't like Big Government Progressivism either, so if somehow it snowed in Los Angeles in the next ten years or so. In lets say July and Progressives run Congress and the White House, someone like Bernie Sanders is President of the United States. And they try to push a Medicare For All Single Payer Health Insurance System, because of this decision will have a hard time doing that under the Commerce Clause. Because the ACA which is more Liberal then Socialist and very moderate, with some Conservative aspects to it, compared with Medicare For All. Wasn't ruled Constitutional under the Commerce Clause today and also the Medicaid Provision, that if the Feds are going to force States to cover more people with Medicaid Health Insurance, they have to pay for it.

So as I see it, there are victories all across the board with this Supreme Court and some losses for Right Wingers and Progressives. Liberals get the ACA and more Americans will be able to get Health Insurance they can afford, as well as keep their Health Insurance. And still keep their choice in where they get their Health Insurance from, Conservatives win on Judicial Restraint. That its not the job of the Supreme Court to throw out laws based on policy, only if they are Unconstitutional, Progressives win because 30M more Americans will now have Health Insurance. And get help from the Federal Government to pay for it and Libertarians win because even though the ACA was ruled Constitutional, just not under the Commerce Clause. Which is how a lot of Federal Social Insurance Programs have been ruled Constitutional in the past. Progressives lose because this shows we can cover just about everyone in the country with Health Insurance, without having to have Medicare For All.

Republicans lose today because this is a big victory for the President, his landmark achievement so far domestically. And he can now tell Americans, especially Independents about the popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act and if Mitt Romney tries to use that against him. President Obama will be able to point out that the ACA is similar to what he passed in Massachusetts as Governor that he supports and the President will be right.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

"Adam Smith and the Follies of Central Planning": Why Freedom and Opportunity Works and Big Government Doesn't

Progressives are probably going to hate reading this but so what, because the last month or so. Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Progressives who support him, have been giving Progressivism a real bad name. And all they've have done is lived up to the negative stereotypes about Progressives, that they believe in Big Government and that they want to control how people live their lives. With the whole soda ban in New York and its not just Progressives who are guilty of Big Government as I've blogged before. They have just been more vocal lately and its not just the soda ban with Mayor Bloomberg but his crackdown on marijuana as well, targeting people that NYPD may believe. Are in possession or may have smoked marijuana, as if there isn't enough crime in New York. NYPD has to go after people for what they do with their own free time, what's next in NYC, they are going to ban candy or other junk food. Perhaps a City Curfew, because NYC can be dangerous late at night, its this whole notion that Big Government knows best or in New York's case, Uncle Mike knows best. And if you don't live life the way we want you to, Uncle Mike and his people are going to punish you for what you do to yourself.

They can get away with this in New York, because there are plenty of Progressives there who believe in that. But this represents why Progressives have had such a hard time getting elected in Statewide and even Nationally, they can't even get on National Tickets to one of the major parties anymore. Let alone get elected, because people are worried about all the new taxes and spending that they would have to pay for, if Progressives were ever put in power. Which works fine in France and Sweden and other places in Europe but Americans tend to want the freedom to live their own lives. And have government take care of the things that only they should really be doing and help people when they need it get on their feet but not try to control how Americans live their lives. Government should be there to protect our freedom and see that there's opportunity for people who need it, that opportunity but not try to control how we live or live the life that Progressives would want us to live.

Thats what this whole notion of Central Planning is about, Central meaning the Federal Government, Planning meaning controlling how people live. Progressivism use to as it related to Big Government, be about the economy, that taxes and Government Spending needed to be so high. To assure equality in the country and take care of people but the last ten years in New York and perhaps other places. Big Government Progressivism has gotten involved in peoples social lives as well and Americans tend not to want that but be free to live their own lives.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Joseph Campbell- 'Walter Cronkite Wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America'

Source: Reason Magazine- Joseph Campbell-
Source: Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Joseph Campbell- 'Walter Cronkite Wasn't The Most Trusted Man in America'

Whether Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America or not, who knows, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted news anchor in America. Which was more important and easier to judge. He had this saying at the end of the CBS Evening News, “and that’s he way it is”. And people believed that, we don’t have that today where a lot of our media is determined by which side of the aisle controls that organization.

The three national network newscasts, on NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as PBS, which people tend to forget or not even be aware of, still report the news based on what they report. “This is what we found and these are the facts in the story, as best we can determine”. And I believe they still carry out the Cronkite legacy as I would call it that way. Where most of the rest of the news operations, except for C-SPAN and CNN as well, cover the news from a slant from either the right or left.

Opinion news mix in lets call them targeted facts, they’ll give you half the story if that and the rest of it will be commentary. And most of the people they interview share their view of the news and what that means and they’ll interview them to back up their perspective. And when they interview someone from the other side, they do it to contradict that person. With Walter Cronkite and with the PBS NewsHour, you get, “these are the facts”, their reporters are reporters whose job it is to find out what’s going on in the country and around the World.

The network news divisions will interview analysts, a lot of times people without political slants who are there to explain what the facts mean. Which is much different from Fox News that’s in the business to give right-wingers a voice in the country and be the spokespeople for the Republican Party. Except for Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, where you get real reporting and real interviews. And with MSNBC, especially in the prime time, but you can go back to 3PM with Martin Bashir, what you get from them is voices of the so-called progressive movement. They go after Republicans, as well as Democrats when they believe they aren’t progressive enough.

One of the problems with today’s news and why someone like Walter Cronkite wouldn’t be nearly as relevant, if even successful, is that today news is not only mixed in with commentary, but with also entertainment. People much rather know what Kim Kardashian wore at the last event she went to. Or about Paris Hilton’s latest run in with the law, and not how well the economy grew in the third quarter or April’s jobs numbers. So hard news is a lot harder to sell today with news organizations under the pressure to report everything, not just what’s important.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Is Solitary Confinement a Form of Torture?: How We Should Be Dealing With Our Most Challenging Prison Inmates

If you are interested in Crime and Punishment and even Reality TV, not Celebrity Contests, which is essentially what Reality TV has become. But real Reality TV, about what goes on in life and how people live their lives, then I suggest you checkout MSNCB Lockup, which airs on the weekend. That goes inside of some of America's toughest prisons, I wish they would get into Private Prisons but perhaps in the future, as well as Federal Prisons. But MSNCB Lockup, as well as the Criminal Investigation Network, American Justice on BIO, Lockdown on Nat Geo, Discovery ID has a show as well. They go into these prisons and show people who aren't in prison, what life is like behind bars, for thousands of our Prison Inmates. And they pay special attention to life in Solitary Confinement, where we house our most challenging Prison Inmates, a lot cases people with mental problems. Who perhaps should be in Mental Institutions instead and people who haven't given up their Criminal Careers, just because they are in prison and don't feel they should have to obey rules. Inside or outside of prison and end up getting into fights, attacking other inmates, running Criminal Enterprises while in prison etc.

Solitary Confinement again is for our most challenging Prison Inmates and they are confine in one cell by themselves. For at least twenty three hours a day, I don't have a problem with this part for our challenging Prison Inmates, people who essentially have behavior problems. As long as they are getting treatment while in this situation and essentially treated as having a behavior that needs to be corrected, instead of just warehoused there indefinitely, so they can't do any damage. In General Population but here's my issues with Solitary Confinement. Twenty three hours a day or more of Solitary Confinement, with three sometimes two meals a day and not enough food to actually fill the average person up. And real low quality food at that, stuff you might feed the dog or something, with nothing to do all day, a lot of time confined in bare cells, where they are not even allowed reading material. Where its too cold in the winter and too hot in summer, in some cases, like a show I saw focusing on an Alabama prison, where it can get to a hundred degrees in the summer, in the cell, no AC or anything. Alabama summers are hot enough with AC.

Its not Solitary Confinement to me by itself thats the problem, people who abuse and attack innocent inmates and staff. Deserve to be isolated until their behavior is corrected, its what we've done with Solitary Confinement thats the problem. Where we are essentially warehousing people, so they can't hurt people in General Population, which just make the problem worse and makes these people even more angry. What we should be doing with Solitary Confinement, is make it rehabilitative, so inmates can get the treatment they need to correct their behavior.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

ESPN: The Fallen Champ- The Untold Story of Mike Tyson

Source: ESPN-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

When I think of sports tragedies, I think of baseball players like Darryl Strawberry, Jose Cansesco, Pete Rose, Dwight Gooden, Denny McClain, etc. And In Strawberry and Cansesco's case, both five-tool players who had all the ability to be First Ballot Hall of Famers, but who weren't very disciplined off the field. And both had drug problems as well as injury problems, which had something to do with their lack of discipline as men. In Pete Rose's case, had an incredible great career, because of what he accomplished on the field by that alone, is a First Ballot Hall of Famer.

But of course because Pete placed bets on baseball, has put into serious doubts, of whether he'll ever be inducted into the Hall of Fame. In Denny McClain's case, the former Detroit Tigers pitcher, who is a former Cy Young Award Winner, in 1968 who won thirty games in a season, who was on course to being a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again had drug and gambling issues and his career was cut short. Because of trouble he got into outside of baseball. Dwight Gooden's case, probably the best National League pitcher of the 1980s. A former Cy Young Award winner as well. Again on course to becoming a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again addicted to cocaine that kept him out of baseball for a period.

When I think of boxers who had tragic endings to their careers, who never lived up to their potential, I think of one boxer. Iron Mike Tyson, who dominated the heavyweight division in the late 1980s and that says a lot there. He wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1986 and was dominant that year, as well as 87, 88 and 89, but loses his World Championship by 1990. To a journeyman, but talented boxer in James Buster Douglas, but never showed the discipline to be a great boxer. Who wins the World Championship by beating Mike Tyson in February, 1990, but loses his championship by November, 1990 to Evander Holyfield. And his career was basically over by then. Mike Tyson, by far the most dominant heavyweight of this 3-4 year period, but loses his championship to an unknown undisciplined boxer in 1990. Who loses the championship just nine months later.

And of course Mike Tyson makes an attempt at a comeback in 1991, with a couple of solid fights against Razor Rudduck. Wins both of them, setting up a potential fight with Evander Holyfield, by 1992. But was no longer the dominant boxer that he was a couple years ago, even though he's only in his mid 20s at this point. But of course that fight never happens because of Iron Mike's rape case in 1992. Where at the very least, Mike is guilty of poor judgement and shouldn't of put himself in that position to begin with. Which makes Mike Tyson's career, what could've been, which is how he'll go down, instead of what a great career he had.
ESPN: Mike Tyson- The Fallen Champ

Friday, June 22, 2012

GOP Governors vs Mitt Romney: Is The Economy Improving or still in Recession

If you listen to Mitt Romney and other National Republicans, you'll hear them say the economy is horrible. America is losing ground, we are about to fall off a "Fiscal Cliff", Obama Socialism or whatever they the President's Economic Policies aren't working. We are still in recession etc but if you listen to Republican Governors who are up for reelection either this year or in 2014, especially in Swing States. Like Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, things are getting better, they are improving, things were horrible the day before they became Governor but since they've been Governor. Because of Republican Policies that they can't either name or can relate to how they've made the economy better, things have gotten better under Republican watch. Its the old try to have it both ways, which is what politicians that are in office, try to do on a regular basis. Both parties do this because there are enough Americans dumb enough to buy it. If you are Mitt Romney and other National Republicans, to be frank the economy sucks right now. But if you are a Governor, its hard to make the economy sucks argument, because some of it has happened under you.

I've had my own experience with having it both ways, not that I've tried it myself but with people I've actually talked to on Facebook. Right Wingers who like to brag about how bad the economy is, until you present them with facts in how the economy is starting to improve and they've said. That we are still in recession and the only things that have led to the Economic Recovery, have to with the Private Sector and that President Obama deserves none of the credit for the Economic Recovery. But all of the blame for the recession, well you can't have it both ways, you can't be in an Economic Recovery and a recession at the same time. That would be like trying to ride a bike and drive a car at the same time, its one or the other. The Republican Governors that are trying to have it both ways on the economy right now, especially are both very unpopular. Rick Scott of Florida and Scott Walker of Wisconsin and the more they talk about how bad things are in their State, the worse they look.

Republicans have some options right now, speak the truth about the economy, things are still bad but better then they were in 2009. That aint happening, still try to have it both ways and try to fool enough people into voting for them, most likely scenario or option c. Things are horrible in the country right now, we are still going through a National Recession. Just not in my State where I'm Governor and up for reelection this year or in 2014, thats also a possibility.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Talking Points Memo: Richard Mourdock- Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision

Source: Talking Points Memo-
Source: Talking Points Memo: Richard Mourdock- Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Ruling

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate. Just because of the numbers, 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators, as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana, Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you.

And Richard Mourdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6. Because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent. And Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where its common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11. Or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim illegal immigrant from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and Centrist and of sound mind.

Just to cover this video, lets call him Dick Murdock. Because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Murdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s neoconservative GOP that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us. And give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say, “look we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country. Or you should vote for this because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- George W. Romney: A Republic No More

Source: Liberty Pen- George W. Romney-
Source: Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- George W. Romney: A Republic No More

The more I hear George Romney, the more I know that he wouldn't fit into today's Republican Party. Because he would be seen as a Moderate-Liberal. And in today's neoconservative and Tea Party GOP, Conservatives look like Moderate-Liberals, because George Romney wasn't interesting in telling Americans how to live their lives. "This is the moral way to live and so forth", which is what you hear from a lot of Republicans today. George Romney was interested in economic and fiscal policy and probably foreign policy as well. He did run for President in 1968, but not by telling Americans how to live their lives. His son Mitt is the same way, the difference being that Mitt feels the need to convince Neoconservatives and the Christian-Right that he's one of them. And if you watch this video of George and then watch his son Mitt, except for George being much older, its like listening to the same person talk. They look and sound so much alike and sound very similar on policy as well. The difference being that with George, what you see is what you get. He's not interested in trying to convince people he's something he's not.

George Romney was right in this sense, the United Sates is not a democracy in the sense, that if a majority of Americans even if they vote for something on ballot, doesn't automatically mean we get it. Which is why legislation that Congress passes gets thrown out and why ballot measures get thrown out, if they are ruled as unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution is almost impossible to amend and even if you are successful in doing it, it could take ten years to accomplish that. If we were a majoritarian democracy, we might not even have a Constitution and even if we did, it could probably be amended through majority rule. And things like free speech could either be amended or thrown out. As well as the Equal Protection Clause, the right to bare arms, property rights, just go down the line, could be either amended or eliminated by majority vote.

So Americans can't force other Americans to live their lives the way they want them to or deny them of things, because they feel like it. Or don't like them or don't like how they live their lives. Which is why these same-sex marriage bans have been thrown out by courts. We are a constitutional republic in the form of a liberal democracy. That we all have the right to live our own lives and live independently. As long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing. That we elect our leaders generally by majority vote (except the President) but we have guaranteed constitutional and individual rights. That are almost impossible for us to lose, short of hurting innocent people and then going to jail for our crimes. But even American prison inmates have basic constitutional and individual rights that they can't lose by a simple majority vote. 

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

"Get Government out of Welfare Now!" An Interview with Star Parker: How to Replace the Welfare System

I do find it ironic that someone like Star Parker or anyone else would bash a system that they grew up on. Without Welfare Insurance, where were her family be, at least they had that and ended up not starving or homeless or growing up in foster homes that sorta thing. But Welfare Insurance is the very least that we can do as a country to help people who currently can't fend for themselves. The old Welfare Insurance System pre 1996 Welfare to Work, essentially allowed people to stay on Welfare indefinitely, until they found a job basically. But did little to nothing to help those people actually find jobs, unlike Unemployment Insurance where there's a limit to how long people can collect from it. And Unemployed Workers actually have to be looking for work and report on the progress they are making, with the old Welfare System, basically nothing was expected from you. If your kids have, well kids before they were ready to take care of them, following the example of their parents. And dropped out of High School or college to take care of them and not get a job, they would be on Welfare Insurance as well. But this is the very least we can be doing to help people in need, what we need to do instead is empower them to get on their feet.

What we did in 1996 with Welfare to Work, was set up a system where people on Welfare Insurance. Would get help getting them the skills that they need to be able to get a good job and go to work and get off of Welfare Insurance. Finishing High School, Financial Aid so they could go on to Community College or a Vocational School, as well as Childcare so they could do these things. While their kids are getting the supervision that they need, as well as help finding a job and we now have people who use to be on Welfare Insurance, now running and owning business's. As a result of Welfare to Work but we can go even farther then that and set up a system that empowers our Non Profit Community Service Sector, to take the load of helping people in need. Not just help with getting the basic essentials that people need to survive but Childcare, Job Training and Job Placement and get government out of the business of running Public Assistance and have them serve as a regulator instead.

The old Welfare Insurance system simply didn't work, we have sixty years experience that tells us that. With all of the families, generation after generation of people living off of Welfare Insurance one after another. Without much assistance if any to help these people get on their feet and off of Welfare. 1996 Welfare to Work has worked much better but we need to do much more then then and empower our Non Profits to carry more of the load which they want and are able to carry.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Republicans Fire Away At President Obama Over Immigration Policy Change: If President Obama is For it, the GOP is Against it

Republicans attacking President Obama over Immigration Reform is nothing new, about as old as Big Band music or something, The Statue of Liberty. Its just sorta of the way that they do it and how they've approached anything that President Obama has put on the table, including positions they once held. Like the Healthcare Mandate, Full Disclosure in Political Campaigns. Tax Reform where we would close Tax Loopholes in exchange for lowering Tax Rates, eliminating Corporate Welfare or at least cutting it. Something that the Tea Party was in favor of at least at first, until they saw it might actually might pass and not be able to use it against the President. Immigration Reform and the Dream Act, are just latest examples, positions that both President Reagan and W. Bush supported or supported something similar to back in the day. I can handle the fact that they have a hard time with acknowledging that Barack Obama is even President of the United States. They generally refer it him as Obama, Barack Obama or use his whole name, to make him sound like a Muslim. And after that they'll accuse him of being an Atheist, I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Not all Republicans are disrespectful towards the President, the GOP Leadership has been responsible here, House Speaker Boehner generally refers to President Obama as the President or President Obama. Sen Minority Leader McConnell does the same thing and so does Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney but their Lower Class members lets say, are pretty childish in how they treat a President. But what do you expect from a Kindergarten Class of Republicans. The GOP use to be a party of good ideas, that was a truly Fiscally Conservative Party, that was against all government waste and overreach. Including in defense and Corporate Welfare and other parts of the Tax Code, that had the motto, the government thats closest to home and governs least. Is the best government, that was Conservative on Social Issues at least in the classical sense. That it wasn't governments job to tell people how to live our lives, that Americans had to figure these things out ourselves.

The GOP use to be a party of good ideas, not all of them, I'm not a Republican but on some of these Fiscal Policy issues. They've been right all along, like deficits and debts do matter, that there's a limit to what even the Federal Government can do and spend, before it causes problems. That we can't Tax and Spend our way to prosperity and so fourth. The GOP was a party of ideas like on Welfare, Tax and Immigration Reform, as well as Healthcare Reform, Democrats like the President have embraced them. But now the GOP is a party of campaigns and power, we use to have all of the power, we were kicked out twice and now we want all the power back, the House of Representatives is not enough. To the point where if Democrats are for it, they are against it, if President Obama came out for the Flat Tax, they would call it a Tax Hike. If President Obama came out for increasing the Defense Budget, they would call that wasteful Washington spending and you can go down the line.

America needs two strong parties, I would argue we need more then two, we need a real Ruling Party, which is what we have with Democrats. And we need a real Opposition Party, an Opposition thats just not against things to be against them but lays out alternatives to what the President puts on the table. And can work with the other side, when they embrace their ideas and we don't have that right now.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous

Source: Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace-
Source: Talking Points Memo: The Fox Report- Chris Wallace: Calls Interruption By Daily Caller's Neil Munroe Outrageous

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Dueling Speeches: President Obama vs Mitt Romney On The Economy: Two Competing Visions as it should be

President Obama laid it out perfectly when he said that the economy isn't where it needs to be and no one is happy with it. And that this election will be about who can get the economy moving again, not by themselves obviously, no President can do that. Who has the best vision to move the economy, I hate to say it but forward, sorry Neoconservatives this election will not be about Same Sex Marriage or retuning America to the 1950s. As much as they try to make it about that, the Democrats will turn out to vote, Democrats whether they are still in love with the President or not. Understand this, the question is whether enough Republicans understand this for Mitt Romney to be elected President, someone who just wants to focus on the economy and Foreign Policy. But its a question of whether Neoconservatives who do want push Gay Marriage bans and other Constitutional Amendments, will allow him to do that. President Obama wants to make this election about where do we go from here, Governor Romney wants to focus on where we are now and when he talks about what he wants to do. Its hard to tell the differences if any, between him and President Bush, so he would prefer to talk about right now.

President Obama's strategy should be pretty simple, this is what the situation was when I took over, this is what I and Congress and have done about it. This is what we have accomplished together as a country, this is what I want to do in the future and I need to be reelected to accomplish this. And this is what we would get with Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress, which is what is assured would happen if Mitt is elected President. The more he tries to pass the blame around or act like George W. Bush is still President, which sounds good with partisan Democrats who are going to vote for him anyway. The more he turns off Independents who he also needs to vote for him, who'll be thinking but Mr. President where's you're responsibility here, what have you done about it, what's you're plan for the future. Mitt Romney should focus on the economy pure and simple and when he's asked what's his plan for the future, then offer ideas but remind Independents constantly of how bad things are right now.

I'm a Democrat obviously so the choice to me is clear and I know who I prefer, even though Barack Obama is not my dream choice for President. I would prefer Gary Johnson who better represents me ideologically as a Liberal but the President is a hell of a lot better then the Mitt. And I don't see Democrats and Republicans as members of the same party with different names, as some Progressives and Libertarians do.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Will President Obama Be A Down-Ballot Drag?: It Depends on How His Campaign is Going

In an election year where Senate Republicans should be running away with taking back the US Senate and make Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the next Leader. It looks like Mitt Romney will have to win the Presidency to see a Republican Senate in the next Congress. However House Republicans may hold on if President Obama is reelected, in a close election, if the President were to pull away, he'll take the House with him as well. Senate Democrats have managed to raise enough money to at least give their vulnerable incumbents who are up for reelection in 2012, the resources to be able to defend themselves. And thanks to the Tea Party, what should've been safe seats for Senate Republican to defend, have now become tossups, because the Tea Party has defeated incumbent Senate Republican in Republican Primaries. And have replaced them with Far Right candidates, like in Maine and in Indiana, Senator Olympia Snowe is not running for reelection, because of fears she would be challenged by the Tea Party. And Senator Dick Lugar lost the Republican Primary to a Tea Party candidate, both Senator Snowe and Senator Lugar are both popular in their States, not just with the Far Right.

As things look now the Presidential Election is essentially dead even at least in the polls but President Obama is closer to getting the 270 then Mitt Romney. Something like forty votes ahead if you look at the electoral maps but both are under 270 and need to win some more States to get there. Like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, President Obama is still fairly popular with the Democratic Party but they are no longer in love with him and if he can lock in his base. He would go a long way to securing a reelection and reevaluating his positions on things like the War on Drugs, Indefinite Detention and the Patriot Act, would help with that. And keep Liberals in his camp instead of voting for Gary Johnson, President Obama's Approval Rating is somewhere around 45%. If he gets that up o 50%, he gets reelected but the economy is holding him back with Independents and these Social Issues are holding him back with Liberals. And Progressives are still shocked and pissed that Barack Obama is not a Socialist.

I still believe that 2012 is 2004 as far as the incumbent being reelected, except that George W. Bush is Barack Obama, except the country might like Barack more. And John Kerry is Mitt Romney, the wannabe President who can never settle on a message and is afraid to be himself, so he keeps bringing these new characters instead. And if thats the case, a fairly close Presidential Election, with the President winning and Senate Democrats holding onto the Senate. And House Republicans holding the House with a very tight majority.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Recalls, Libertarian Paternalism, & The Differences Between The Tea Party and Libertarians: Simple Libertarian vs Neoconservative

The main difference between the Tea Party right now and Libertarians, is pretty simple, Limited Freedom cutting parts of the Federal Government. Except for Corporate Welfare and the Defense Budget, vs Individual Freedom and Limited Government, that Economic Freedom is just not enough that Americans should be able to live their own lives, even if Neoconservatives don't approve of how we are living. Again as long as we are not hurting anyone with what we are doing vs people who take the attitude, you are either with us or against us, you are a Conservative in their minds or you don't matter and aren't even a real American. The difference between Fascism and Free Speech, liberty vs authoritarianism, a Free Society vs a Statist Regime for people who think and live their lives like the Tea Party. The Tea Party didn't start out that way three and half years ago, back then they were made of real Fiscal Conservatives, who believed in cutting Government Waste across the board. Including in the Defense Budget and in Corporate Welfare and there were even Libertarians in this movement, people like Rand Paul.

Thats not where the Tea Party is today thats basically been taken over by Neoconservatives. I'm not a Libertarian but a Liberal Democrat but if I wasn't a Liberal but with the same Political Ideology and lets say Progressives takeover the Democratic Party. I would be a Libertarian or a Liberal Independent, perhaps working to form a new Liberal Party that would take on Progressives and Republicans. But I could never be a Republican in today's Republican Party, a Party that now expects everyone to agree on everything or they aren't real Republicans or Conservatives. People who today are considered Moderate Republicans, like Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Dick Lugar, thirty years ago, which is actually not that along ago, I remember it. Would be considered Conservatives because they believe in getting Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms and in a strong National Defense.

Thats not the Republican Party today, which is why Libertarians are now either members of the Libertarian Party or are Libertarian Independents. But aren't Republicans because the GOP has moved so far to the right and has now become a Far Right Statist Religious and Neoconservative Party and not even much of a Republican Party anymore. Those are the main differences between Libertarians and the Tea Party today.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Newt Gingrich: "I Don't Know What Jeb Bush is Talking About": Why Conservatives don't fit into today's GOP

I blogger I follow on Google+ as well as on Facebook and Twitter, shared a blog today from his site. Arguing essentially that Ronald Reagan wouldn't fit into today's Republican Party, that he would be seen as a Moderate-Conservative, keep in mind I'm talking about Ron Reagan here. Someone who argued that Big Government is not the solution but is the problem. And yet he would be described as a Moderate, when do you hear Moderates use rhetoric like that. But its true, they would view President Reagan as a Moderate-Liberal, why because he worked with the other side, didn't agree or support the Social Agenda of Religious Conservatives. He was a get Big Government out of my wallet and bedroom Republican, a phrase that Barry Goldwater coined, where's the moderation in that rhetoric. Well I guess when you are a Neoconservative or a Theocrat, Individual Freedom except for economics, well if you are part of the wealthy that is, Blue Collar workers shouldn't be allowed to organize in the World of Neoconservatism. So even Economic Freedom would be limited with Neoconservatives but if you live in that World and Galaxy, far, far and away, Conservatism seems Moderate to you.

Newt Gingrich during this interview with John King said at times we have to work together, even with the other side, to get things done. So tomorrow, he'll probably be accused of being a Moderate-Liberal Republican as well but thats where the GOP is today, as President George W. Bush said. "You are either with us or against us", now of course he was talking about the War on Terror but Neoconservatives have applied that to the Republican Party as a whole. You either believe in gutting the Federal Government, except for defense and Corporate Welfare and that homosexuals and people who look at Adult Entertainment are immoral. Or you are a Big Government Liberal, I know this must sound crazy but thats the mindset of the GOP right now. "You are either with us or against us", you think like the Tea Party and other Neoconservatives or you are a Socialist and Un American.

As Vice President Biden said back in 2010, "this is not you're fathers GOP", I would argue this is not my grandfathers GOP. And they would both be over 100 years old today, this is a new creation out of the Far Right in America, people who were tired of, messing around with Far Right Third Parties. Because they thought Republicans were Liberals and a party that neither Ron Reagan or Barry Goldwater could get elected nationally in today.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Labor, Money & Scott Walker: Lessons From The Wisconsin Recall: The Decline of Influence of Organize Labor in America

I support the Right to Organize, I always have and always will as a Liberal Democrat. But again its a Right, not a Mandate workers don't have to Organize. And one of the problems that Organize Labor is facing in America, whether they are Private or Public Workers, that as much as this may be hard to believe. With the economy right now, the country is progressing and the need for Blue Collar jobs, isn't as great as it use to be at least in America and more American Workers are moving from Blue Collar jobs to White Collar jobs. And don't feel the need for Organize Labor, because they believe they can negotiate their own deals and contracts and can get a better deal and contract. Then a Labor Union can do for all of the workers working together and don't believe they should have to make the same amount of money as Joe or John, Mary, Sally or whoever, especially if they are more productive. Just because they are all members of the same Labor Union and believe they can get a better deal on their own.

Right now Organize Labor at least in the Private Sector, is losing to progress and the market, where for support for Organize Labor is still strong with Public Workers. But their ability to influence elections in Wisconsin and other places, is in decline. I'll always be in favor of the Right to Organize, even though I don't support a lot of the Economic Agenda of its Leadership, they are a bit to the left of me, to put it mildly. Just as long as it remains a Right and not and not a Mandate and for Organize Labor to remain relevant or become more relevant in America. They are going to have to adapt and be able to communicate a message, that speaks to a broader base then just Blue Collar workers, because Blue Collar jobs are in decline and have been declining.

What we saw in Wisconsin is that even though a majority or more of Wisconsinites don't like heir Governor, they approve of Scott Walker over his opponents and the ability of Organize Labor to influence elections is in decline.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Mitt Romney: 'America Is On The Cusp Of Having A Government Run Economy': The World of Mitt Romney, Far, Far Away

I generally only blog about Political Satire on the weekends and save the weekdays to blog about the top 4-5 news stories, at least according to me each day. But this is Thursday and the last two days, I've seen two people say just strange crazy things about the President, that I thought were worth blogging about. One by a Democrat and two by a Republican, one a former President, who still wants to be President and when he forgets to take his medication, still believes he's President, in Bill Clinton. And the other a wannabe President who's spent half of a decade running for President, a job he'll never have and you heard that first, if you are listening. Bill Clinton going off message about the Tax Cuts, suggesting the President should consider raising them before the Presidential Election, Tax Hikes in an election year, when you are already in a close election . Good thing Barack Obama didn't listen to Bill Clinton in 2008, I mean they would be the first chapter in a book on how not to run for President, right after declaring you were born in Japan or some other foreign country to foreign parents. And also by the way you are not even an American Citizen, you just play one on TV.

And of course my favorite Punching Bag of 2012, ever since Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum ended their Presidential Campaigns. Granted Mitt Romney is my favorite Punching Bag by default but he still counts, announcing on Wednesday that President Obama slowed down the Economic Recovery on purpose. He also said in the Republican Presidential Debates, that President Obama's goal is to ruin the American Economy, so we can have more people dependent on Public Assistance. Apparently Governor Romney is unaware that the health of the American Economy, will determine whether President Obama is reelected or not and that its in President Obama's best interest to have the strongest economy possible. And today Mitt suggested that President Obama wants the Federal Government to control 50% of the economy, I mean come on Outer Space might be exciting and all of that. Especially for all you Star Trek fanatics, I mean fans but get real.

How about a break from the Science Fiction and come back to Earth once in awhile, just for a visit if nothing else. This type of rhetoric plays well with the Far Right, people who believe that Barack Obama is a Kenyan Citizen, an African Muslin Atheist Socialist, notice that at least two of those words don't go together. But people who believe this have their own planet, far, far and away, that perhaps only Superman can reach and they come to Earth to, for one probably just to get away from each other and two to see what humans are like. And they represent a fringe so small group, that couldn't fill up a Phone Booth, when you make statements like this, you are held accountable for them. They get played over and over and you are asked constantly if you stand by them, perhaps in ten different ways. This is what happened to Rick Santorum, when he was under the impression or influence, depending on how you look at, that he was only speaking to Far Right crowds and that only they would only report what he said.

When Mitt Romney gives speeches like this, he should only give them on Romney World or wherever the hell he's from, Mexico or wherever. And hope that he's not being watched by Americans with Satellite TV, reporting back to Planet Earth, exactly what he said, because all Presidential Candidates are held accountable for what they say, good or bad. To see if that person actually believes what they said.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

HBO Docs: HBO Documentary Films- The Weight of The Nation 2012

Source: HBO Docs-
Source: HBO Docs: HBO Documentary Films- The Weight of The Nation 2012

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban, which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids. It fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people who you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens, I’m speaking basic English here, it goes away. Because you eliminated it. Progressives have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. So if someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

That people who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford Healthcare, won’t get it, at least at the Emergency Room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for.

As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make. To pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Liberty Pen: John Stossel & Geert Wilders- Hate Speech Or Free Speech?

Source: Liberty Pen- Geert Wilders & John Stossel-
Source: Liberty Pen: John Stossel & Geert Wilders- Hate Speech Or Free Speech?

At least in America, I'm not going to speak for the rest of the world, we have a First Amendment. Which gives us the constitutional right to speak our minds. Without being punished by government, as long as we are not libeling, or threatening to hurt, or kill people. In other words I can call Joe or Marry, (excuse the word assholes) but I can't threaten to kill or beat up Joe or Mary, or any of their friends or relatives, coworkers and vice-versa. And I can't call them a murderer in public, or something like that, without any evidence to back it up. Now if someone has been arrested for murder, I could then call them a murderer, the person or people responsible for murdering Bob, or Sally or whoever. The Supreme Court has been very consistent here, our First Amendment just doesn't protect political speech or news organizations, or Freedom of Religion.

But also our expression, certain forms of censorship, is unconstitutional in America. Banning the sales of music or movies, because some group sees it as offensive, or immoral would be unconstitutional. Pornography is even protected by our First Amendment. This is something that so-called Progressives and Religious-Conservatives, seem to hate, but for different reasons and keep looking for ways to limit our First Amendment rights. So-called Progressives with their politically correct code of conduct, not only hate, hate speech, but would like to outlaw it, the Westboro Church case from March, 2011 that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is a perfect example of that, whereas the Religious-Right are guilty of undermining the First Amendment, but in another way. And would like to outlaw speech, that they disagree with and find offensive like pornography. The two Neoconservatives ran for President in this cycle for the Republican Party, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.

Santorum and Bachmann, who are both in favor of a Constitutional Amendment that would ban pornography, because they know if a law like that passed Congress, it would get thrown out like a piece of garbage that it by the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives in the Tea Party seem to want to limit the First Amendment to political speech that they agree with and Freedom of Religion for Christians. The United States is a liberal democracy, because we understand that we are big and powerful enough to put up with any type of speech. That being able to hear all ideas is more productive, than just the ideas that government approves us, because we as people are able to decide for ourselves what's correct, what's false, what makes sense and what's nonsense and that we don't need government making these decisions for us.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Talking Points Memo: Video: The War on Everything: Words That Are Simply Overused in America

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger

There are several words that are overused to the point, that I would almost like to see them disappear. Like a hot song, that sounds great for a the first couple of weeks, but then you get tired of hearing it and a song like that generally comes from a one-hit wonder. Someone like the group Dream, that was big ten years ago or so. With their song Love Me or Love Me Not, I think was the title. But if I had to put a list of lets say the top 5-10 words that are overused in America, going from 1-5, it would now be war, which just recently replaced awesome to me as the most overused word in America.

When I think of war, I think of combat, where people can get hurt or even die. Where lives can even be saved. The Iraqi War comes to mind, the Civil War in Syria would be a another one, the Vietnam War. But if you are not familiar with military combat, but somehow familiar with American politics, which would be really odd, you would have to be the ultimate political junky to meet that criteria, where all you are interested in is politics, you only follow campaigns and speeches and don't see anything else in the world, you would think war is purely a political term. The war on this and that and so-fourth. The War on Women, the War on Capitalism, the War on Freedom, the War on Religious Liberty, first of all most of these things are fabricated.

The War on Women, thats not a war. Now you can make the case that House Republicans are making an effort to limit females access to certain health care. But thats not a war, its a campaign at best and they sound funny and perhaps clever and easy to remember, make good sound bites etc. But these aren't wars, they are campaigns at best. I've been guilty of this myself using the word of war with my blogging. I wrote one blog that I called the Neoconservative War on Freedom, but I was half-joking. Perhaps I should've said the Neoconservative Campaign Against Freedom. Which would be accurate and would also be easy to remember.

But a lot of times when people say The War on This or That, they generally aren't talking about a War on This or That. They are generally talking about something specific. Just to round out my list of words that are overused in America top 5-10 that I mentioned earlier. That hopefully may end up on the Late Show Top 10 List.  (Perhaps as soon as beach houses go for sale in North Dakota or just after that) War would be at the top of the list for reasons I've already explained.

Followed by awesome. If everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. It seems like every time someone sees something they like now it's, awesome!!! When I think of the word awesome, I think of something or someone that's really amazing, good or bad, that there is no other way to explain it. Most of things in the world don't meet that criteria. A team isn't awesome just because they won the championship, they might not be awesome at all. A good meal or movie, band, song, whatever, aren't always awesome, they may just be good at that particular time.

Two other words that thank goodness have died down over that last few years, perhaps with Paris Hilton being in the news less (or in jail) are hot and fabulous. For the same reasons as awesome and I said top 5-10 and I've only done a top 4, or how about Fab 4, number five and then I got to wrap up. And I'm sorry if I offend any valley people, girl or guy here, but you guys and gals are big targets of mine. But like and totally, especially when they are put together. Like totally! That is so annoying to me!

And oh my God, especially when they are put together, thats nine and WTF. (Hopefully you know what thats short for) All for the same reasons as awesome. And there you have it my top now list of words that are overused and I'm tired of hearing. But look I understand lazy when it comes to language in America is in and thinking for one's self especially when it comes to expressing themselves and risking standing out, is not really in especially if you come as different. But being a person an individual is exactly that. And with that comes the freedom for people to be themselves, even if they are different from the pack or group.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Harry Browne: Defining Morality: How People Should Look at Life

Libertarians and even Liberals to a certain extent are stereotyped as people who look at life, by saying "whatever works for you". Do whatever the hell you want to, do to others whatever the hell you want to as well, that there's no such thing as right and wrong. Well thats not Libertarian or Liberal, that would be Anarchist which is different, where under Anarchy there wouldn't be any Law. Whereas both Libertarians and Liberals believe in the Rule of Law, that yes we have to have Freedom and be able to live our own lives, otherwise we wouldn't be living in a Democracy. But that we need Rule of Law to govern the country, how we interact with each other. That government shouldn't tell us how to live our own lives, who we can marry, what Healthcare we can have and what New York City did yesterday, which was to ban Soft Drinks, at least to a certain extent. What we can do in the privacy of our own homes, that governments role is to regulate how we live amongst each other, so we don't hurt innocent people.

As a Liberal I believe in Freedom of Choice and Personal Responsibility, that we have the Freedom to live our own lives. But are responsible for the choices that we make in our own lives and aren't entitled to be bailed out when we make mistakes and should be rewarded for the good decisions that we make. And that people need to do what makes them happy first, not try to live the lives of other people, but literally what works for them, so long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Because we are responsible for the decisions that we make and have to deal with all of them, good and bad, good consequences and bad consequences. I had a teacher in High School named Phil Slatkin, who now I respect a lot but at the time, I didn't appreciate him enough. Who was always talking about consequences and trying to teach us, that we better make good decisions, because we are going to be held responsible for whatever decisions we make.

Thats what morality is to me, live you're own life the way you want to and the best way you can. Because you only get one crack at it, so you might as well live it the best way you can and make the best decisions you can, as well as treat people the way you want to be treated. And you'll be able to live the best life that you can, that government can't tell us how to live but can come down on us, when we hurt innocent people.