Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, November 30, 2012

Ron Paul 2008: Brook Siliva-Braga Interviewing Ron Paul- "Democrats and Republicans Are Dinosaurs"

Source: Ron Paul 2008-
Source: Ron Paul 2008: Brook Silva-Braga Interviewing Ron Paul- "Democrats and Republicans Are Dinosaurs"

I at least borderline hate the two-party system and this is coming from a hard core Liberal Democrat. Who'll be a Democrat as long as the Social Democrats/Socialists who aren't Liberals, aren't running the party. And so far so good considering, we've nominated Barack Obama who at best is a true Progressive as far as the political spectrum is concern. That Democrats aren't ready to go to the Far- Left and bring back the Greens and people who call themselves Democratic Socialists. But I believe even Social Democrats deserve a voice in American politics. And I don't see them representing a threat to Democrats, except for maybe the Progressive Caucus. Because the country is becoming more liberal-libertarian, not socialist as a country. And even if I did see Social Democrats as a threat to the Democratic party as far as winning elections, I would still believe that they deserve a voice in American politics as an American. To the point that they should have their own party. What they have now is a small voice in the Democratic party, but not much of a leadership role.

This might also sound strange but I believe that Republican Party needs some competition on the right. If you consider libertarianism to be on the right, to me I see them further left of Liberals on social issues, but obviously not socialist, but putting that aside for a moment, the Republican party as it's currently constructed is going to expire. They rely too much on voters that are even dying off or are becoming a small minority in the country. Who won't adjust to the changing America and still believed in so called traditional values and people who don't fit into this box, they view as Un-American. The Religious-Right, Tea Party Nationalists, are dying off and won't be a factor in American politics as far as leading Republicans to victory probably within eight years. Closer to four years and since the country is becoming more liberal-libertarian and these people aren't being replaced and are dying off, the GOP will have to adapt and bring in new voters, or they will no longer be a major party.

What could happen is that either the Republican party adapts and brings back Conservative Libertarians into the GOP, as well as economically conservative Latino-Americans, as well as Asian- Americans and perhaps even African-Americans. But people who are at least moderate on social issues. Either these people come back to the GOP, or the GOP will either go out-of-business. Or the GOP will once again become a conservative party in the mold of Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul and no longer a authoritarian religious party that they are now, or the GOP will go out-of-business as a major party. And be replaced by the Libertarian Party, or something like an Independence Party, or a combination of both with what's left of the Goldwater/Reagan coalition merging into this new conservative party. Because we won't survive very long as a liberal democracy with one-party rule.

We currently have a two-party duopoly in America, thats obvious. But with the situation that the GOP is in today and where they are headed demographically and the feeling by a majority of Americans that we need a third-party, here's the opening that Libertarians and Socialists have to get into the game and build up their political movements. And force these new third-parties onto ballots and into debates and give Democrats and Republicans real competition on the right and left in America.

NBC News: Christians, Liberals Left Out as Islamists Back Egypt’s Draft Constitution

Christians, liberals left out as Islamists back Egypt’s draft constitution

Doesn't look like a Liberal Democratic document

Thursday, November 29, 2012

ReasonTV: 1000 Wrongfully Convicted and Counting: New Registry Checks Justice System



I do believe in being tough on crime but being tough on criminals, the people who actually committed the crimes. And being tough on the people who committed crimes and represent a threat to society, murderers, rapists, terrorists, gang bangers. To use as examples, people who get high and use illegal narcotics, don't fit this category and people who were wrongly convicted. Don't fit that category either, which is why being tough on crime is not good enough we also have to be. Smart on crime as well, because yes innocent people who were convicted can get off eventually, so some may. Say thats good enough but it isn't because once you enter the Criminal Justice System, your life changes. You forever, especially depending on how long you are in prison, once you enter the CJS, you are now surrendered. By real criminals, people who are exactly where they should be and now your life, physical health, as well as independence. Are now at risk, you may up having to do things in prison you normally wouldn't do, to prevent future harm from coming your way. Which can also get you into trouble with the prison itself if you are breaking prison rules.

So yes for felons and criminals who represent a threat to society, we need to be tough on them and make. Sure they are behind bars until they serve their debt to society but those are the people we need to be tough on. Not people we think did the crime or they had the best opportunity to commit the crime but we don't know for sure. Because we didn't do all of our homework and didn't do a complete investigation.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Philosophy Club: Professor Anderson: On Liberalism vs. Libertarianism: How They Are Similar But Different



This is a great debate to have, not just for me as a Liberal Democrat but for anyone whose interested. In political philosophy, because Liberalism and Libertarianism are similar, they both are based off and come from the same word. Which is liberty and are both around to protect individual liberal and Liberals and Libertarians look very similar on social issues. And even as it relates to economic policy, that we are both suspicious of Big Government, especially. Centralize government, we are just different in the areas of what should be cut from the Federal Government. And how it would be decentralize, Liberals tend to want to block grant the safety net, whereas Libertarians would simply eliminate the safety net. Gary Johnson again who I consider to a classical Liberal Democrat, meaning not that he's a Libertarian but a classical Liberal. Someone whose not anti government but whose pro limited government, produced a very Liberal plan when. It came to the safety net in 2012 and know he didn't propose to expand it but to decentralize it. And send it to the states to run, Ron Paul would try to eliminate the safety net all together.

Again Liberals and Libertarians are very similar if not identical on social issues, both very strong on individual freedom. And civil liberties, both against the War on Drugs, both would end the War on Drugs, just do it differently. Libertarians would legalize all narcotics that are currently illegal, Liberals would legalize pot and decriminalize other narcotics. And get drug addicts in drug rehab, rather then sending them to jail or prison. Liberals and Libertarians both believe in low taxes, but Liberals like Gary Johnson wouldn't eliminate all taxes, just the. Income tax and move to a consumption tax, we are very similar on social issues just differ on economic and foreign policy. Where Libertarians tend to be isolationist and Liberals tend to be Liberal Internationalists. But we both look like Liberals on social issues and civil liberties and at times its hard to tell the difference.

Someone reading this may say, aren't Liberals those people who are always trying to increase my taxes. And government spending, except in the areas of national security and law enforcement and are big believers in the welfare state. And very government centric and constantly bashing business and trying to tell people what they can eat and drink. And how we can talk to each other and sometimes even sound like they don't like America and so fourth. No these people aren't Liberals, even though some of them tend to be Liberal at least on some social issues and civil. Liberties but these people are Progressives, Social Democrats or even Democratic Socialists but they aren't Liberals.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: Lew Rockwell Blog: By Ryan McMaken: "The Conservative Future Is the Same as Its Past": How The GOP is not Conservative Enough

Brooks: The Conservative Future Is the Same as Its Past by Ryan McMaken

I've blogged this before but I really believe this and its true, the problem with the Republican party is not Conservatism. The problem that the GOP is not that they are too Conservative but they aren't Conservative enough, if the objectives of Conservatism. In the political sense to restrain as well as cut the size of government, to conserve individual freedom, thats what Conservatism has always been about in. America but what we've gotten from the GOP in the last twelve years, is not a Conservative revolution and the country becoming. Way too Conservative but what we've gotten from the GOP is more Big Government, it started with No Child Left Behind in 2001-02. The Patriot Act in 2002, Medicare expansion in 2003, two unfunded wars in the Middle East, that have been paid for all by borrowing. And this is just from the Bush Administration.

Post President Bush what we've gotten from the so called Tea Party movement., is not more Big Government economics. But Big Government interference and an interference in how states should manage their own marriage policies. And how they should be able to deal with things like pornography and marijuana, where Neoconservatives have decided that instead of believing in states rights. Which is what the GOP use to be about, that Neoconservatives would like to take the power away from the states. To regulate these activities and instead of Americans being able to make these decisions for themselves, that the. Federal Government should be making these decisions for the people instead, the problem with the GOP. Is not that they've become two Conservative but that they aren't Conservative enough, they've combine economic Conservatism with religious Conservatism and have become Statist as a result.

What the GOP needs to do in the future to remain a major political party that one day could be a governing party again. Instead of just controlling the lower chamber of Congress with a small majority, is once again become the Conservative party of the United States. Not just a party thats to the right of the Democratic party, that actually believes in individual freedom, not just economic and religious freedom. But social freedom as well, along with Federalism and believe the states should be able to govern themselves. Rather then trying to tell Americans how to live their lives or what it means to be an American.

Monday, November 26, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: Lew Rockwell Blog: Ron Paul: "Five Greatest Dangers to a Free Society": The Two Main Dangers to Liberal Democracy

5 Greatest Dangers to a Free Society by Ron Paul

The dangers for a free society if you want to call it that, no matter where we live we are never free to do whatever we want. But putting that aside for the moment, other then to say the idea should be about living in a Democratic society, not majoritarian. Where everything is done by majority rule but a Liberal Democratic society where we are free to live our own lives as we see fit. As long as we are not hurting any innocent people with what we are doing, thats the type of society that I'm in favor of and believe in. As a Liberal Democrat, not the only type of society of Democracy, there are Liberal Democracies and then there are. Social Democracies that you see in Canada, Europe and Australia to use as examples and then there are also. Lets say more Statist Democracies, where the people there are essentially free but with more restrictions on how people. Can live their lives, what the media can report and what people can say about the State, that you see in Eurasia to use as an example.

The main dangers I see to a Liberal Democratic society, come from both the right and left, people who are to. The right of Liberal Democratic thought and people to the left of Liberal Democratic thought, Neoconservatives. On the right who don't like how some Americans live their lives and see their behavior as immoral and would like to outlaw. Certain things that are legal today but they see as immoral and Social Democrats on the left who want America to be more like Canada or Europe. Where we are less individualistic and more collectivist and more dependent on the state for basic human services. So we are more equal and have less inequality as they see it in the country and would even like to restrict us more. When it comes to social freedom as well, like in the areas of hate speech and perhaps even the right to self defense. And would like to invoke political correctness all across the country.

So as I see it there are really only two main dangers that threaten Liberal Democracy and they come from the fringes. On the left and right, people who see us as too free and would like more restrictions on how we live our lives. And even though there are only two, these dangers are so big that if they were to ever come into power, would threaten our abilities to live freely. Because they would effect our civil liberties, right to privacy, free speech and the economy as well, our economic freedom. As well as how much debt we would owe other countries because from all of the borrowing from our government.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Idea Channel: Milton Friedman- The Power of Choice

Source: Idea Channel- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Idea Channel: Milton Fridman- The Power of Choice

The power of choice is a huge power and the most important and powerful tool we have as people no matter where we live in the world. Whether we live in a liberal democracy like America or social democracies like in Canada, Europe, Australia, or the democracies in Asia, or whether we live in authoritarian states. It's the most important power we have as people and in a way the only power we have as individuals. Because without it we don't have any other powers as people, because choice it powers everything. We do as people and it's always there for us as well, as long we have power over our minds and bodies we have choice. Some may have more than others, but we always have choice as long as we control our minds and bodies. Power of choice is the power to make good decisions or the power to make bad decisions. And with every decision we make as people, there are consequences that come from the choices that we make good and bad.

There's no such thing as a socialist utopia or paradise. There may be some countries that are closer to this vision than others, but that's exactly what it is. A vision of what life would be like if everything is perfect. So it's not a question of whether have have a perfect society, or not but what's the best society that we can build for ourselves that's better than all of the alternatives. Now me as a Liberal Democrat that society would be a society where the power of choice is running rampant, where individuals have the power to govern themselves, as long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Which is what liberal democracy is about. As a Liberal and as an individualist I believe in personal freedom, responsibility and education. The ability for people to get a good education and then use that power to make the best decisions for themselves and the people that are dependent on them. And then be held accountable for all of their decisions for good and bad. 

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Adequate Housing

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Adequate Housing

Asking Milton Friedman the question what would be a good policy that would achieve adequate housing for the poor, is the wrong question to ask Professor Friedman. Because he didn't see government's role to provide the poor an adequate living. What he supported was creating a system that would work for everyone and empower more people to make as good of a life as possible for them self so we wouldn't have so many poor people in this country. So a better question to ask Professor Friedman would be something to the effect, of what would be the best policies or system that would empower as many people to be successful in life, so we wouldn't have as many poor people in this country. Because of all the new opportunity that would be created. With all of these Americans able to get a good education that allows them to be successful in life. So they don't have to live off of public assistance, whether it's public housing, or a combination of public assistance programs. That would've been a proper question to ask Professor Friedman.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Thursday, November 22, 2012

NBC News: Michael O'Brien: Religious Conservatives Say They Deserve Seat at Table in Retooled GOP

Social conservatives say they deserve seat at table in retooled GOP

Religious Conservatives who aren't even Conservative in the political sense, at least when it relates to social issues. Because they believe in a bigger role for government, rather then smaller represent why the GOP is struggling to win state and nationwide. At the Federal level, because they are seen as intolerant and bigoted towards Americans who look at the country differently, especially amongst new voters. Who are voting overwhelmingly Democratic right now. And the GOP leadership needs to break away from Religious Conservatives to bring in the new voters that they need to remain relevant in the future.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

ReasonTV: Auburn U. Professor Roderick Long on Race, Gender, Equality and Libertarianism



I tend to have a lot of respect for Libertarianism especially when it comes to individual freedom and non aggression. Where I differ with Libertarians as a Liberal when it comes to non aggression, like take discrimination, a big part of this video. Is when people are discriminated against for something that has nothing to do with what they are being denied for. Like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality what have you, is that as a Liberal I believe that people have the right to. Legal recourse that there should be a sufficient consequence for Joe discriminating against Susan or. Vice versa based on gender or whatever reason that has nothing to do with whether Joe or Susan or. Whoever it may be and Libertarians say so Joe and Susan or whoever it may be shouldn't have that right. Because that would violate Joe or Susan's property rights to decide who can and can't work for them or. Whatever reason they are being denied to do, serving them in a cafe or whatever it may be, Libertarians believe that Joe and Susan. Or whoever have the constitutional right to not serve or hire people based on race or gender, because its their property.

Civil rights are just one example of where Liberals and Libertarians disagree, classical Liberals believe that. And again I just consider myself a Liberal but for this purpose I say classical Liberal because I. Don't want to be mistaken for a Social Democrat who puts equality over everything else, including freedom. But classical Liberals and Libertarians also believe in individual freedom, that individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. As long we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing, but guess what so do Libertarians. They believe in the same thing, so they should believe in civil rights as well but they don't, when. They believe it infringes on property rights, something they value more.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Days Nu: Video: NBC's Days of Our Lives: Death by Doughnuts, The Baby-Face Killer Strikes Again


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on Blogger 

As entertaining as this scene was and most of that being Deidre Hall as Dr. Marlena Evans, it's not believable and I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean think about that, Dr. Marlena Evans as a killer, the last thing doctors do is murder people. I mean that would break their hypocritical oath, wouldn't it, or hippocratic oath, I know it is one or the other. And besides she is a baby-face killer, I mean she's too sweet to kill anyone. Women that adorable don't murder anyone, except in Hollywood, wait this is Days of Our Lives, so maybe this isn't so unbelievable.

But that sort of goes to my point of why this scene is so good. Dr. Marlena Evans played by Deidre Hall, this gorgeous baby-face women, who looks 10-15 years younger than she actually is, who is better looking than Sammy who plays one of her daughters on this show. She's perfect to play a killer, because no one would believe her as a killer. There's nothing scary about her, which is why she could do it and fool everyone, because no one would expect her as the killer. Because she looks too sweet to hurt an ant.


Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb 1994- Milton Friedman, Personally Speaking in 1994


Source: Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb- Milton Friedman Personally Speaking in 1994

One of the things I like and respect about Milton Friedman's history and politics, is that his history and life story has shaped his libertarian politics and how he looks at the world. That he came from practically nothing or very little. And worked his way up by earning a college scholarship from Rutgers University and working his way up in life that way. Which I believe is a big reason why's he's been so against welfare and the welfare state. At least to the extent that it's there to take care of people because with Dr. Friedman's life, he wasn't raised on public assistance. And didn't live his life off of public assistance, but he showed that people could make it in life on their own. Even if they come from very little and make something out of their lives, if they are just given the opportunity to do so. Which is a classical liberal idea, not Libertarian but classical liberal idea. An economic Liberal idea that people who even come from very little in life if they are just given the opportunity to do so.

What separates Liberals such as myself from Classical Libertarians, is that Liberals believe that government can play a role through scholarships and grants to empowering people in need. Especially kids who come from rough beginnings. Who work hard and are qualified to go to a good college and even adults who've made mistakes early on in life. But just need an opportunity and empowerment to be successful if life and then they'll be able to do that as well. The 1996 Welfare to Work law being a perfect example of that. Economic liberalism is not about telling people what to do and how to live their lives and telling people how much they can make and punishing economic success through high taxation.Which is essentially what democratic socialism or social democracy is.  Or is it about getting government completely out of the economy. Which is what Libertarians tend to believe. But economic liberalism is about seeing that everyone can do well in life. And empowering people at the bottom to be able to advance on their own through economic opportunity.

I agree with Milton Friedman that if we're going to have a public safety net and I believe in a public safety net, but Professor Friedman would probably say, "if we're going to have a public safety net, then it needs to be designed to empower people in need to be able to move up in life. And that is should encourage work and independence and be temporary for people who only need it. But everyone else who can should be able to take care of themselves and support themselves from their own hard-earned income." I'm not even paraphrasing Professor Friedman here, but that is what he essentially believed with his proposed Negative Income Tax and support for Welfare to Work in the 1990s. Liberals believe that government should be an insurance system and a referee for the economy. Not the director and have something top-down centralized big government welfare state. But to protect consumer and workers from predators. And help people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system and help them get back up.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

ReutersTV: Fast Forward: Maine Senator-Elect Sees Signs of Hope Amid Fiscal Cliff Impasse



The next Independent Democratic Senator from Maine

Lew RockWell Blog: A United Europe? by Alexander Jousse

A United Europe? by Alexander Jousse

This idea that a United Europe could come together and form some new super Federal Republic, perhaps going. As far as Portugal in the West to Italy in Eest and perhaps South Ireland in the Northwest to Germany or Poland in the Northeast. Has been thrown around several times especially in the last fifteen years since they started the European currency and the European Central Bank. Especially with China on the rise across the board, as well as India and Brazil and with Russia back on the rise, Europeans have. Been wondering how do they with twenty seven or so fairly small Federal Republics compared with those. Huge countries that I just named, how would they be able to compete with not only America and Japan in the future. But with China, India, Brazil, Russia and even Mexico in the future and if Europe East of Eurasia were to become. One United Federal Republic, you would be talking about a country of 350-400M people, with perhaps an economy as big or larger then the United States.

Personally as far landmass and population, politics and culturally, racially and ethnically and everything else. Where a United Europe would essentially be dominated by Caucasians as far as in numbers but very diverse ethnically. With Germans, Italians, French and may others living in this country, there would be some cultural differences, as well as linguistic differences. But America and Canada have that and have functioned very well and if Europe could overcome this, Europe would become a superstate that could compete. With anyone in the World, economically, politically, militarily and everything else, it would be country that. Foreigners would want to visit and even immigrate to in the long term short term they are two messed up economically but long term this would be an option to look at.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Reason: Shika Dalmia: FEMA: "Welfare Masquerading as Disaster Relief"

FEMA: Welfare Masquerading as Disaster Relief

FEMA or the Federal Emergency Management Agency is exactly what Big Government look like, a national disaster relief agency. That comes in and saves people and does for them what they can't do for themselves or at least thats how its advertised. Something all Progressives whether they call themselves Social Democrats or not should be in love with, as much as their idea of pushing for a. National Healthcare System modeled after the UK NHS but FEMA is a little different because its probably one if at least if not. Our most effective Federal agency, it for most part does what its designed to do, the question is FEMA the answer. Going forward and do we need to find a way to pay for our disaster relief or not, because a lot of times when these disasters happen. Congress takes out a loan from China or Russia or Brazil to pay for our disaster relief, instead of finding a way to pay for it out of existing funds or raising new revenue to pay. For it and thats a big problem and just paying for our disaster relief ourselves, would be a big help in us finally. Getting our debt and deficits under control.

We need a Disaster Insurance System and I'm not talking about something thats run by the Federal Government. For the entire country, the states could do this or even through the private sector or a combination of both. And we need to fully fund our disaster relief instead of putting it on the National Debt Card every time a disaster like this happens. And we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year by simply paying our own bills.

Self-Ownership: John Stossel Show- Gary Johnson's Future in Politics

As a political outsider when it comes to the libertarian movement, I would like to see Gary Johnson Left-Libertarians/Social Liberals, take over the Republican Party or bring those people go over to the Libertarian Party. Along with having universal polling so all the third-party candidates get polled and universal ballot access. And at least get the third-party candidates in their own national TV debates. Even if they don't go up against the Democrats and Republicans directly. Which would not only save our two-party system, but expand it and keep up from going to a one-party system. With the Democratic Party having all the power. Because the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, destroyed the Republican Party.

Maybe we would see the Gary Johnson. Liberal or Left-Libertarians merge with the Ron Paul classical Libertarians and either takeover today's GOP and run the Neoconservatives out of the party. Or at least out of leadership and run that party, even merge with what's ever left of the classical conservative movement. The Goldwater/Reagan coalition in the Republican party and make the GOP a real Conservative Republican party. Which is what they aren't right now. There are millions of Americans who love both economic and personal freedom, but who aren't anti-government. They just don't want government running their lives for them and just do the basics. Including a safety net for people who truly need it, as well as law enforcement, national security and foreign policy. But these voters don't have two major parties right now who speak for them.

The other option for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, would be to combine their factions and both go over to the Libertarian party to build that party up for the long-term that would allow that party to be a strong enough third-party. And win some elections, some seats in some state legislatures, a governorship here or there, local council seats. And even win a few seats in Congress, and some House seats here, perhaps some Senate seats over here. But that would have to be a long-term strategy. Short-term they would be better off taking over and occupying the GOP. If Gary Johnson was simply polled like President Obama and Governor Romney were during this election, he might have been at 15-20 percent. Because again he speaks for millions of Americans who aren't looking to eliminate government. But get it back to doing only what we need it to do.

Big Government: John Galt: "Price Gouging?" NJ Governor Chris Christie is Already Talking About Raising Taxes to Pay For Hurricane Sandy

Price gouging? Chris Christie is already talking about raising taxes to pay for Hurricane Sandy

The more I learn about Chris Christie is the more different he is from the Tea Party, he's sane for one and he's also a Governor. And public official who puts doing his job and his people over whatever partisan political philosophy and movement. That he might be subscribed to, he just got hit with perhaps the worst hurricane in the history of the Northeast and in October at all times. When the weather in New Jersey is starting to get cold, this was not one of those late summer hurricanes that we see in the Southeast. When the weather is still hot and humid but in the Northeast in October when the weather is starting to get cold. He got with and teamed up with President Obama simply because he needed his help and put his state over his party and. Whatever political movement that he might be part of right now and because of all the damage and because of. How both New Jersey and the Federal Government are scrapped as far as cash right now, is considering doing. Something he normally wouldn't do, which is to raise taxes to pay for the cleanup of Hurricane Sandy.

The whole Hurricane Sandy episode that the Northeast the is still experiencing and having to deal with rather. Then watch it on TV like the rest of the country, does bring up a couple questions that needs to be answered in the future. Especially with the situation of the economy, debt and deficit, whose best to deal with disasters like this and how do we fund it in a way that can prevent us from having to put the money. On the national debt to pay for in the future, so do we need a National Disaster Fund to pay for these cleanups that. Could be run by the states with the resources to pay for it and do we need some type of Disaster Insurance System. To help property owners who watch their properties get wiped out when a disaster like this happens, that again could be run by the states as well. Not talking about new Big Government Federal programs but things the states could run by themselves.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

FRSFreeStateNow: Lew Rockwell Blog: Clyde Wilson: Why Save the Republican Party?

Why Save the Republican Party? by Clyde Wilson

There's been talk in the last week or so of where the Republican party should go from here, after losing a Presidential. Election with almost very major demographic group overwhelmingly thats not traditionally and one traditional Republican group that they tend to win and in big numbers. College educated people, they split that vote 51-49 and with the Republican base getting older, dying off and smaller not being. Replaced for the future, there's been talk including on this blog of where the GOP should go from here and if. Anything should they become more Democratic on the social issues, we already have a Democratic party, a party I''m a proud member of as a Liberal. We don't need another Democratic party but we do need a Conservative Republican party that can compete with Democrats today. And into the future and the way the GOP is today, they are simply not built to last as a major political party, just look. At the US Senate race in North Dakota of all places last week, a state that Mitt Romney won overwhelmingly and yet Democrats. Held that seat and will send another Democratic Senator from that state to Congress.

Republicans don't need to become more Democratic to succeed in the future but they do need to become more. Republican but in the traditional sense and get back to why they become relevant again in the 1960s, because of the ideas. That Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan pushed, less government and more freedom and that social freedom is also freedom and they need to also become more Republican. In the sense that they believe in the Republic that the United States is still a Republic and should always. Remain that way and stop trying to force their religious views on everyone else who doesn't agree with them. Which is a majority of the country and stop complaining about religious intolerance every time a law is passed that has nothing to do. With them personally but may go against their religious beliefs, like same sex marriage to use as an example.

The Republican message on economics and the need for fiscal Conservatism is sound in the sense, of lower. Taxes and regulations, decentralization, debt and deficits are bad and need to be addressed and fixed but they are missing the social freedom part of their message. And if they can at least get to the point that it should at least be left up to the states to decide these key social issues and that the. Federal Government should step back, then that would go a long way for the GOP in bringing in new voters.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Ron Paul: "Secession Is an American Principle"

Source: Ron Paul-
Source: Ron Paul: Secession Is An American Principle

If these nutty right wingers, far-right wingers who haven't gotten the memo that it's no longer the 1950s and the United States is a much different country now, then let then secede and take the poor Bible Belt states with them. And they won't have to live  with different people and different lifestyles and cultures of so-forth. With people who are more openminded about how Americans should live and what it means to be an American. Instead of this narrow-minded view of what it means to be an American. Because this is exactly what it is, old Americans trying to continue to fight a culture war with new Americans. People who grew up in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s, people who view people as people and don't see people who aren't exactly like them as Un-American. Tolerant of different people, lifestyles and cultures. This whole succession debate is about the fact that we now have an African-American President who was reelected last Tuesday. And these far-right Neo-Confederates not being able to deal with that fact.

If Neo-Confederates want to secede from the union, by all means good riddance! We already have way too many ignorant Americans in this country, but they are going to have to leave their states in the country, because the overwhelming majority of the country wants to remain American. And remain a part of the United States. Where all Americans no matter, their racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and national background have an opportunity to succeed in this country. This is not the Euro States of America, or the Caucasian States of America, or even the Anglo States of America, for the nationalist Far-Right who don't even like non-English Americans, even the Irish, because they're Catholic and don't like Southern Europeans, because they have olive skin and are Catholic, or Jews and Slavs, because they have different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and practice different religions than the Southern Baptists. This is the United States of America where everyone is welcomed, as long as they're productive, responsible and obey rule of law. 

Monday, November 12, 2012

Los Angeles Times: U.S. Moving Toward Energy Independence, Report Says



Isn't President Obama suppose to be anti American energy and yet during his administration we are headed. Towards energy independence, with our ability to produce oil, gas, including natural gas, coal, nuclear and ethanol. As well as all the renewable energy sources and clean energy we are going to be able to produce within 10-20 years. Which will mean millions of jobs for Americans and get us off of foreign oil.

Sky News: Tim Davie, Acting BBC Director General On Sky News



BBC needs real reform so its an independent network, that delivers entertainment, news and sports for. Brits and others and not seen a an information service of the British Government but seen as something. That operates on its own.

Lew Rockwell Blog: Thomas E. Woods JR: "But I Thought Ron Paul Was the Candidate of Big Business"

But I Thought Ron Paul Was the Candidate of Big Business by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

As much as Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum to a certain extent claimed to be the Reagan Conservative. Running for President in 2012, the GOP for the most part didn't have that person, Representative Bachmann and Senator Santorum. Were the Big Government Republicans, Mitt Romney was the Northeastern Republican, even though he tried to play to Neoconservatives. The closest the GOP had to a Reagan Republican would've been Ron Paul, when it comes to both economic and social freedom.  Even though Representative Paul isn't a Reagan Conservative on foreign policy, more of an isolationist but he. Was the closest thing the GOP had to Ron Reagan in 2012 and the GOP pushed him aside like a piece of garbage. Even though he was really the only Republican running who has any appeal to non traditional Republicans, young people. Who see the Republican party as intolerant.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Rick Whitlow: Video: Courtney's Body Shot


This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on Blogger

I never got the point of the Coyote Ugly shots and why that is popular there and why they do that. But I do like watching sexy women lying on the bar. Sexy well-built healthy looking women and checking out their tight legs in tight jeans on the bar. And watching sexy women crawl on the bar. There’s nothing really there to try to understand. It is real obvious to see why that is sexy. Assuming you’re not blind or gay, or a combination of both. Which is really what I was focusing on here in this video and perhaps wishing I was the guy there pouring the whisky or scotch or whatever drink they used to pour into that women’s bellybutton. Because she is obviously a very attractive sexy women who looks great in tight jeans as most if not all sexy women do.


ReutersTV: The Trail: Sen. Murray: "Dems Will Go Over The Cliff if Republicans Won't Budge"



There's a final deal here to avoid the fiscal cliff and jump start the economy if Republicans just budge a little bit on new revenue.

Ron Paul: A New Beginning- The Future of American Libertarianism

Source: Ron Paul-
Source: Ron Paul: A New Beginning

Now that Representative Ron Paul will be leaving Congress at the end of the year, hopefully for the libertarian movement he'll spend his retirement while he still can, to continue to build this movement. Whether it's either through the Republican party and trying to convince Libertarians and Classical Conservatives that they need to save this party, before Neoconservatives and Tea Party Nationalists ruin it and make it no longer competitive at the Federal level, for both President and the Senate. Neoconservatives and Tea Party Nationalists, can still get elected at the local level and for state government and the U.S. House, but the last two Federal elections, Republicans have been losing very winnable Senate elections, because they are nominating Far-Right Nationalists and Neoconservatives, who can't stand to see America for what it is. And want to take the country back to the 1950s, when if had they just nominated Conservatives or even Libertarians, they probably win those elections.

So Libertarians I believe have a couple options going forward. Take over the Republican party and knock the Neoconservatives and Nationalists, out of the leadership and start running Libertarians in GOP primaries and put the resources that are necessary to win those primaries and even run primary challenges against Far-Right Republicans who are currently in office. Or they put their resources behind the Libertarian Party and recruit new voters to that party who don't like big government Republicans or Democrats. And make the LP big and strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats in the future.
Bhoff Detroit: A New Beginning- Ron Paul 2008

Saturday, November 10, 2012

YAF-TV: Milton Friedman Talks About Enemies of Markets


Source: YAF-TV- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: YAF-TV: Milton Friedman Talks About Enemies of Markets

The enemies of markets (if you want to put it that way) are people who don't believe in markets. People on the Far-Left who tend to have a social-democratic if not socialist background, who believe the central government should have a major if not the prominent role in society to see that everyone is taken care of. But then there are people who are called crony capitalists. Who believe that government shouldn't interfere with how their business is run (meaning regulation and taxation) but that government which is funded by taxpayers, should give them extra money. So their business is as profitable as possible. And the advantage that crony capitalism has over people who are against crony capitalism is that it's non-ideological, as well as non-partisan. You have proponents of crony capitalism on both the Left and the Right. You have opponents of crony capitalism (I'm one of them on the Left) who are on the Left and the right. Center-Left Liberals such as myself oppose crony capitalism. Center-Right Conservatives and mainstream Libertarians, oppose crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is another way of saying corporate welfare. Which has been around at least since the early 20th Century and it's not going away anytime soon. 

Friday, November 9, 2012

Reason: Jesse Walker: The Taming of the Tea Party

The Taming of the Tea Party

The only person the so called Tea Party movement didn't target to represent them in the Republican primaries. Was the Leader of the Liberty movement, the person who actually believes in what so called Tea Party people claim to be in favor of. Which is Liberty and this person being Ron Paul, hell if they would've targeted Gary Johnson before he left for the Libertarian party. A party that actually believes in Liberty and had the Tea Party endorsed Gary Johnson, they would've had a candidate that would've been able to. Appeal to people outside of the GOP, Liberal Democrats even who aren't in love with the President Obama. Because of issues relating to civil liberties and freedom of choice, from this point of view Gary Johnson would've been a better choice. Then Ron Paul, because Governor Johnson is not quite as far to the right on fiscal policy as Representative Paul, not looking to eliminate the safety net. But decentralize it and I believe he could've brought in some Democrats such as myself with him.

The whole fact that the Tea Party didn't endorse people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, just goes to show how. Much of a fraud the Tea Party is, that they aren't a new movement in the GOP that can appeal to new voters, young people. Non European Americans but that they are really just the Christian Right with a fiscal message to match their Social Statism. Which is not something an overwhelming majority of Americans support right now.

NBC News: GOP Resistance to Immigration Reform Could be Casualty of 2012 Election

GOP resistance to immigration reform could be casualty of 2012 election

Republicans would be politically smart to pas comprehensive immigration reform with Democrats in the next. Congress because they are going to be more Latino voters to be competitive in the future.

Lew Rockwell Walter Block- Contra Randy Barnett on the Libertarian Party: The Future of Libertarianism

Lew Rockwell: Walter Block- Contra Randy Barnett on the Libertarian Party by Walter Block

I see multiple paths forward for the Libertarian Party. They bring all of those young people who believe in both economic and social freedom and who are tolerant of people of other races, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, religions and so-forth. To go with all of the Libertarians they have now and simply invade the GOP and kick the Neoconservatives out of leadership there, run primary challenges against far-right Republicans especially in States like Minnesota or Virginia. Where Libertarianism has appeal. Wisconsin even, run primary challenges against the Michelle Bachmann's the world running against the fact that people who look at the world that way aren't really conservative and I meaning the libertarian in the race, will not only protect your money and economic freedom but will protect your civil liberties. And not try to run your life for you. They could target far right people in the Tea Party who aren't real Conservatives.

The other path forward for American libertarianism is to bring in more Libertarians to the LP. Not talk about building the LP but actually do it, target young people who might be Classical Liberals such as myself or Libertarians who may not know they are libertarian. Which sounds crazy but there's a group of Americans who want big government out of their wallets and bedrooms, but don't describe their politics as libertarian. A lot of these people and I know what my politics are, but a lot of these people who don't like big government are Liberal Democrats such as myself who don't like Progressive Democrats who are trying to takeover The Democratic Party and try to convert into the Green Party. People who prefer Jill Stein over Barack Obama.

For libertarianism to ever be major player in American politics, they are either going to have to have a major party or become a major party, whether it's the GOP or building up the LP to the point where they can put together a major governing or opposition coalition that can compete with both Democrats and Republicans and they still have a lot of work to do.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

New American: Brian Koenig: France Pledges $25 Billion Tax Break to Businesses

France Pledges $25 Billion Tax Break to Businesses

Wow Socialist France actually cutting taxes instead of raising them

Reason: Peter Suderman: Obamacare Forever?

Obamacare Forever?

Thanks to President Obama being reelected we get to keep or are stuck, depending on your perspective with. The 2012 Affordable Care Act of course better known as "Obamacare" and if it were to become popular. People seeing benefits like not losing their health insurance because they need it, or reach some lifetime or financial cap. Not getting denied health insurance because they have a pre existing condition, individuals who can't afford health insurance on their own getting help to pay for health insurance. Companies who want to provide their employees with health insurance but simply can't afford to do so. Hospitals and individuals no longer having to provide free healthcare, because everyone will be forced to cover. Their own healthcare in with the individual healthcare mandate, with costs of hospitals and health insurance going down as a result.

Some of these provisions are already popular and as the years go by with a Democratic President and Senate. It will become very difficult politically for Republicans to ever repeal the ACA, even if they win the Presidency back. And not pay a political price for doing that.

Lew Rockwell Blog: Thomas DiLorenzo: The Forgotten Conservative Republicans You Should Know About

The Forgotten Men You Should Know About by Thomas DiLorenzo

What passes as today's Conservative Republican Party, is no longer a Conservative Party those days are gone.  Todays GOP came about in the early or mid 1990s after they revolted against President George H. Bush, todays GOP. Is a Neoconservative Party across the board, not just on Foreign Policy but Economic Policy and Social Policy as well, thats stuck in the 1950s of what they see America to be. And are now worried that Americans are losing America as they see record numbers of non European Americans voting every. Year and voting Democratic people who are much further to the left of them and more tolerant and inclusive. Of people who aren't exactly like them, especially racially, ethnically, religiously and when it come to sexuality. As well as people whose number one goals aren't to get married and raise kids but people who also have career goals and are even career driven. Especially women who a lot of Neoconservatives men and women, see women's main job is to stay home, raise their kids and make their men happy.

What passes as todays GOP won't be around ten years from now, they are dying off and young people simply. Don't look at life this way and running from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party or even Libertarian Party. Because they don't see Americans who don't don't fit into this 1950s view of America as Un American and tend to be tolerant of people who aren't exactly like them. And young people are simply a voting block that Republicans are going to have to be able to appeal to in the future. To remain a major party and void becoming an indefinite opposition and minority party.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

ReutersTV: The Trail: Election 2012: Warren, Mourdock, Akin Speak Out on Senate Results



The Senate races last night were literally about the candidates and incumbents and nothing else, which. Is how Democrats won and Republicans lost.

The New American: Thomas R. Eddlem- The Ron Paul Revolution Moves to Congress

Source: Ron Paul-
Source: The New American: Ron Eddlem- The Ron Paul Revolution Moves to Congress

The future of libertarianism in the GOP? Well, Ron Paul is now 77 years old and is leaving the House of Representatives, so at the very least will no longer be much of a presence even in the House, let alone Congress as a whole. Senate Democrats will once again be in control of the Senate in the next Congress and just added two seats to their majority in 2012. And House Republicans will have a smaller majority in the next Congress than they have in this Congress. So, enough about Congress as far as Ron Paul. Besides, I'm tired of talking about Congress anyhow. But the movement he launched with my Generation X and even some Millennial's who have the most support for socialism as far as generation, which is really the opposite of libertarianism has real momentum with young adults in America. And there still plenty of members of Congress in both parties and in both chamber's, like Senator Rand Paul, (Ron Paul's son) Representative Justin Amash, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Mike Lee, Representative Walter Jones, and many others who've have real respect for libertarianism. And perhaps at least could be described as Conservative Libertarians. Because they believe in economic freedom, civil liberties, and federalism.

Reason: Mike Riggs: Can the GOP Embrace Latinos and Small Government at the Same Time?

Can the GOP Embrace Hispanics and Small Government at the Same Time?

Latino Americans are the future of the Republican Party and will have to be for the Republican Party to remain. A competitive party long term and be able to win statewide let alone nationwide, Caucasians are simply shrinking as a percentage of the popular vote, down two percentage points from 2012. From 2008 and will shrink by another two points within four years, with the way the Republican Party is made up. Today, the more Latinos vote, the more Democrats win thats how President Obama won in an election in  a. Country thats has weakest economy for any President seeking reelection since 1936 with FDR, because more Latinos. Voted and less Caucasians voted, 9-10 African Americans are Democrats but 7-10 Latin Americans are Democrats. So the road for the Republicans to chip away at the Democratic advantage with Latin Americans is shorter and when it comes to the economy, taxes and regulations as well as religion. Latin Americans should at least be in  the ballpark for Republicans.

But for Republicans to bring in Latinos they are going to have to appeal to them, give them reason to vote Republican. And with this hardline Right Wing stance that Republicans have been taking on immigration, other then Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and a few others, as well as some Social Issues. All this does is drive Latinos away from the Republican Party and into the Democratic Party electing an reelecting more. Democrats but George W. Bush has already laid the groundwork for how Republicans can compete for Latino voters. With his two Presidential Elections and now its time for Republicans to take that road.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

ReasonTV: The Anti-Science Left: Author Alex Berezow on Why Both Parties Fail at Science



The Anti Science Left is the Far Left in America, when it comes to Energy Policy like when it comes. To coal nuclear and oil they are against these things because they believe they are all bad for the environment. Not willing or able to realize that these things can be produced in a way that benefits American when it comes to Energy Policy, the economy, Foreign Policy and the. Environment, Progressives tend to be believe that the only solutions to our Energy Policy, are Renewable Energy Resources, like solar, wind and perhaps other apparently not realizing that we. Are at least ten years away from when these sources of energy would be strong enough to power the United States. To the point that we could get off of Foreign Oil and even Domestic Oil and not realizing that we are simply not ready as a country to get off of oil, nuclear, gas and coal. That are economy simply need to produce the energy sources for us to move forward economically and to. Eventually get off of Foreign Oil, have a cleaner environment and become Energy Independent.

Lew Rockwell Blog: Why Peace by Karen Kwiatkowski

Why Peace by Karen Kwiatkowski

Its not a question of war vs peace but how do you get to peace and the easy answer to that is not to go to war. But when your under attack, you don't have peace even if you don't respond, so the question is how do you get to peace. And create and environment where war wouldn't be necessary.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Liberty Pen: PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Liberty Pen: PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that Progressives support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that Progressives support. "But if you say offensive things about people that Progressives oppose, like right-wingers, well thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth." So its not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly, Freedom of Speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either. The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common. They tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot. The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will lose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works.


ReasonTV: Q&A with Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate Jim Gray



The Johnson/Gray Presidential Campaign I believe will go down as the most successful Libertarian Ticket. In Libertarian Party History, which might not sound like much but the fact is this Presidential Campaign is really about building the Libertarian Party and Libertarianism. For the future and if they were somehow to get to 5% of the vote on Tuesday, they'll have the resources. To build the LP for the future.

ReutersTV: The Trail: President Obama Ahead in Swing States, Electoral College Votes