Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

WBAL-TV: News: Maryland: Baltimore Residents Hear Casino Jobs Plan

Baltimore residents hear casino jobs plan; Some skeptical | Baltimore City News - WBAL Home

Another opportunity to create economic and job growth in another big American city that needs it. And hopefully Baltimore will do this and do it right so as few people as possible are hurt with as many as. Possible benefiting which comes from things like responsible taxation and regulation.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Investigation Discovery: Video: Wicked Attraction: Kidnapped

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

I’m not sure how a couple could successfully hold someone hostage for seven years without anyone knowing or having any idea where the kidnapped victim is. I mean playing the percentages the victim would probably have multiple opportunities to escape. Criminals don’t tend to be so efficient to the point that they can’t go that long without making some mistake that gets back to the authorities and screws up their operation. The kidnappers have bills to pay and have to go out from time to time, they have to keep their victim not only alive, but healthy to do whatever they are expecting from that person. And for someone who went through that amount of pure torture, worst than spending long periods of time solitary confinement in jail, she seems pretty healthy both physically and mentally.

Reason: Economy: Matt Welch: "Purging The Ghost of Bill Clinton's Economics From the Holy Spirit of Barack Obama": How Clintonomics and Obamanomics Are Similar

Purging the Ghost of Bill Clinton's Economics From the Holy Spirit of Barack Obama

Actually as much as Matt Welch of Reason magazine might disagree with this. Clintonomics and Obamanomics are similar, they are both based on strong education and job training. Encouraging business's to hire and invest in America, infrastructure investment, empowering low income and. Low skilled Americans to be able to take care of themselves and a tax system that encourages all of these. Things along with economic and job growth, the difference being that when President Clinton became President back in 1993, he inherited a weak economy. But an economy that was growing and creating jobs but with high unemployment, interest rates and so fourth. When President Obama became President, he inherited an economy in free fall along with a 1T$ budget deficit and 11T$ national debt. So of course President Obama has leaned more towards stimulus and running debt and deficits in the short. Term so the economy is strong enough down the line to pay those things off. Whereas President Clinton already had a growing economy but with rising debt, deficits and interest rates.

As much as right wingers and Libertarians want to paint Barack Obama as some type of Big Government Socialist or Social-Democrat. Whose not only looking to centralize all of the power in the country with the Federal Government but in his office. He's really not, his economic philosophy or economic Liberalism is actually based on using government to empower people who need it. To be able to take care of themselves and when you have a thing like a Great Recession, with banking system. Collapsing, you have to take steps you otherwise wouldn't take to stop the free fall and buy time for the economy to bounce back. So banks can start lending again, so employers can stop laying people off, so people have money to spend. To keep the economy from sinking and thats what the President did back in 2009-10 and the economy stop. Falling by the summer of 2009 and we stopped losing jobs net by the spring of 2010 and now have the lowest. Unemployment rate and Wall Street at its highest point in four years.

So as a result people who either don't know any better or simply don't like Barack Obama and looking to score some partisan political advantage. Label President Obama a Socialist because he's backed these Socialist looking policies with all of the stimulus. When the fact is stimulus spending is not the President's governing economic philosophy but something he turned to in the short term. Because it was needed to rebuild the economy.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Liberty News Network: Interview With Alan Scholl- Guns Across America Rally

Source: Liberty News Network-
Source: Liberty News Network: Interview With Alan Scholl- Guns Across America Rally

Another example of Libertarians being defensive on gun control. Because instead of trying to come up with or offer solutions to what causes violence in America and these horrible shootings and finding ways to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future, all they have instead to offer are these pro-gun rallies in defense of the Second Amendment. When the fact is no one serious in power in trying to abolish the Second Amendment and as a result Libertarians and other supporters of the Second Amendment end up just speaking to themselves.

If Libertarians ever want to be taken seriously in American politics, they got to stop taking Alex Jones, Breitbart and escaped mental patients on the Far-Right as credible news sources. And instead treat these conspiracy theorists as, well conspiracy theorists. People who base their politics on beliefs and faith, even if all the objective evidence as well as facts contradict what they're saying. And instead have a positive proactive approach. And realize the right to life is also part of the Constitution, along with our property rights and right to privacy. And instead offer positive limited government solutions to our gun violence problem. 

Saturday, January 26, 2013 Politics: Chris Rossini: The New Republican Party: How to Rebuild The GOP The NEW Republican Party: Chris Rossini Email | Twitter Republican party leaders held their first shindig since the election where they told Ron Paul and his supp...

If this so called Republican Party summit is designed to make the GOP look more like the Democratic Party. Then Republicans might as well go home now and even go out of business because that simply won't work. Democrats tried that after 9-11 in President Bush's first term to be more like Republicans at least on national security. And they got hammered for it in 2002 and 2004 and were left as an opposition minority party for four years of George W's Presidency. Americans like competition especially in politics which is why they tend not to be fans of absolute power or united government. One party rule, they like giving one party the Presidency and the other party strong enough to voice a real opposition. But also so the governing party isn't so powerful that they go too far. The Republican problem is not that they aren't Democratic or Liberal enough but their problem is that they aren't Republican or Conservative enough. And trying to come across as New-Democratic Liberal-Democrats or even worse Social-Democrats with all of these. New promises from the Federal Government will only put them out of business faster then necessary.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Teenage Nightmare: Video: Coyote Ugly 2000, One Way or Another

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

First of all, I don’t believe this scene is believable and at risk sounding valley, it looks totally Hollywood. Which is sort of another way of saying that it looks made up, not real. I mean you essentially have a bar fight if not riot in the bar and this very young women who could pass as a little girl if she needed to wanted to, gets up on the bar and stars singing and the fighting stops to hear her sing. Now having said all of that, Piper Perabo did a very good job with a very good song. She doesn’t make you forget about Joan Jett, but I’m not sure that is possible. One of the great things about Coyote Ugly, the movie or the real business is the music. And this is an example of that. And the music might only trail the women of Coyote Ugly as far as importance to it.

Reason: Philosophy: Matt Welch: "Barack Obama's Warmed-Over Collectivism": Barack Obama's New-Democratic Liberalism

Obama's Warmed-Over Collectivism

Here's an another attempt to paint Barack Obama as some type of Socialist that would use the Federal Government. To collect all of the resources of the country including from the American people and put it in one giant pot. For Uncle Sam and his Socialist allies to decide what American gets what and for what. This time coming from a Libertarian who believes that the Federal Government should be doing practically nothing. And that anyone who believes that the Federal Government should have a bigger role then that is some type of Collectivist or Socialist. One of the problems that Libertarians have with their us against the rest of the World worldview is that just because you don't agree with Libertarians. On everything doesn't necessarily make you a Statist that there are other freedom believing ideologies that. Doesn't believe in all aspects of fiscal Libertarianism and is something that Libertarians are going to need to take seriously. If they ever want to be a mainstream movement that has real power in America at the national or even. State and local levels in this country.

Barack Obama's Liberal view of government and thats exactly what it is, its a Liberal view of government but not a Socialist or Collectivist view. Which gets him in trouble with Progressive/Social Democrats is that all Americans should have an opportunity to be successful in life. That government can play a role in the areas of education, infrastructure, trade, promoting American energy resources. Empowering the less fortunate to be able to take care of themselves, these are all mainstream Democratic views of the. Democratic Party and what economic Liberalism is about, that we don't create a superstate that the Federal Government. Would be to run, tax and regulate everything in America to the point it might as well be run by Uncle Sam. But that governments role is to promote and environment where all of these happen in a way that creates as much opportunity for as many Americans as possible.

Barack Obama is not an FDR/LBJ Democrat who would like to create a superstate that would be there to take care of the. Country which is where the Progressive/Socialist left in the Democratic Party is right now but create and environment where as many Americans as possible would have the opportunity to. Be successful and live in freedom in this country and not be dependent on the state for their economic well being. President Obama is a New-Democrat the real Liberal-Democrats in the party, a coalition that goes back as far as Jack Kennedy in the 1960s. That Bill Clinton and others put back together in the 1980s and 90s, not some type of Big Government Socialist that Progressives were hoping for.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

ReutersTV: Video: Congress: Sarah Binder: The Return of Mr. Smith: Senate May Revive Real Filibuster: How To Reform The US Senate

I might watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington again tonight for like the fifth or sixth time. But thats what a real filibuster is, right now what we have in the US Senate. Is a Senator objecting or refusing to move to final passage even if they ever get to that point. Actually lately bills haven't even reached debate because it takes sixty votes in the Senate. To move to debate, legislation and I don't know if you follow Congress fairly closely. I sorta have to as a current affairs blogger but if you turn on C-Span 2 which cover the US Senate gavel to gavel. A lot of times you'll seen an empty Senate floor with one loan sole generally a freshmen having. To sit there presiding over the Senate even though in a lot of cases there's nothing to preside over. Because there's nothing going on because the Senate Leader doesn't have sixty votes to move to debate any legislation. So unless a Senator has something to say and to get off of their chest and give a speech about whatever they want to talk about. A lot of times the Senate is stuck in what's called a quorum call where Senator are alerted that no one's on the. Floor or not enough Senators to conduct any business.

Me personally as an American I would like to see the Senate abolish the filibuster, not eliminate minority rights. I believe those should remain in place and if anything I would empower the Minority Leader as well as Leader with more power. But the Senate needs regular order, committees need to be more powerful and not just hold oversight hearings. But markup legislation and the committees should be the first place where legislation is marked up. And written so everyone in the Senate knows what they are voting on and has adequate time to try. To amend whatever they don't like or would like to add, so bills come to floor and then they get amended or at least the majority. And minority would have the opportunity to amend up or down, with a prevision to try to defeat poison pill amendments. The majority floor manager meaning the committee chairman that has jurisdiction over the bill on the floor. Would manage the time and amendment process for the majority, the minority floor manager meaning the. Ranking of the committee of jurisdiction of the bill on the floor would manage the time and amendment process for the minority. With time limits for both sides so Senators couldn't attempt to amend bills indefinitely.

Like I said I would like to end the filibuster but not only restore minority rights but empower the Leader and Minority Leader more. Filibuster gone, and replaced with a motion to table that only the Minority Leader could offer. That would block the bill until the Leader can come up with sixty votes to overturn the motion to table. But the motion to table could only be used to prevent a vote on final passage and this is what the Leader and Minority Leader. Would also be able to do, no more motion to proceed, once a committee passes a bill out of committee. It would automatically go on the Senate calender to be voted on in that Congress. And then it would be up to the Leader and only the Leader to decide when it comes to the floor. And at the beginning of any debate, all the Leader would have to do is move to call up whatever the bill. Is and that bill would then come to the floor with whatever relevant amendments that are attached to the bill to be voted on. That the Rules Committee approved to be voted on and then the Minority Leader would have the opportunity to call up a substitute to the bill that would. Be voted on as the last amendment to the bill that the Leader brought up.

So thats how I would reform the US Senate but what looks like is going to happen instead. Is that real filibusters aren't going to return but the fake filibuster which is really a block. Or hold on any legislation or any nominee that any Senator can make instead. With sixty votes need to overturn will stay in place instead but the filibuster will be reformed this way. No more motion to proceed or sixty votes need to debate bills and no more post cloture on. Legislation and nominees, meaning once sixty votes are reached to end a filibuster. The next vote would be on final passage which would only require fifty one votes. And what the minority will get in return is the ability to offer amendments and get those amendments voted on. And we'll see how these changes work in the 113th Congress.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

ReutersTV: Video: Fast Forward: Education: Are Student Loans The Next Sub Prime Crisis?

This is why we need to move past the student loan system and set up a universal higher education system for all qualified high school students. So no longer students access to higher education in America will no longer be tied to their parents ability to pay for it. Or whether they can get a scholarship or not, so no longer will students access to higher education be tied. To their parents economic status and their athletic ability but how good of a student they are. And what they have the ability to learn and contribute to society with their intelligence and other. Qualifications and this means coming up with a new financing system of how we fund higher education in this country.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Talking Points Memo: Video: "VA Democratic Legislature Calls Redistricting Trick Plantation Politics"

Here's one example of why we need a national redistricting system not run by the Federal Government. But some type of commission thats run by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. All Bi Partisan in nature and that each state should have a system like this that would have to approve. Redistricting laws before they could be approved by state legislatures and singed into law by governors. Because right now the whole point of redistricting by both sides is so their party can win more seats in the US House of Representatives. And in the state legislature House and Senate, rather then what's the most just system to have. That represents all political factions and political parties fairly. And with a new system like this to go along with full disclosure of all campaign financing. We would end up with more competitive elections in this country when it comes to the US House but also in state legislatures. Instead of just the party in power and the incumbents having most of the advantage just because they are in power.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Liberty Pen: Video: War on Drugs: Thomas Sowell: Why Drugs Should Be Legalized

I'm not ready to legalize all narcotics in America even as a Liberal but we definitely need a new policy on how we deal with narcotics in America. And move away from criminalization and prohibition and to a system thats based around decriminalization. Meaning we would no longer arrest people and send them to jail or prison for simple possession or usage of narcotics. Meaning cocaine, heroin unless they commit other crimes while under the influence. But instead they would pay a fine for it and be stripped of those narcotics and addicts or people caught under the. Influence of cocaine, heroin or meth or addicts would instead be sent to drug rehab at their expense. Where they would stay until their doctor clears them and feels they have been rehabilitated and no longer want those narcotics. We would save billions of tax dollars each year with an approach like this in law enforcement as well as with our corrections system. Instead of making criminals out of people who use narcotics we would get them the help that they need. And get them off of those narcotics.

As far as marijuana again as I've blogged before we are talking about a drug that has similar side effects as alcohol or tobacco. That if anything people would be better off smoking and using marijuana rather then tobacco. But because of the influence that the alcohol and tobacco industries have on our politicians in this country. Marijuana is illegal so we should legalize marijuana and regulate and tax it like alcohol.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

ReasonTV: Video: Civil Liberties: Damon Root: Gay Marriage, Drunk Driving, and Property Rights: Three Supreme Court Cases To Watch in 2013

Here's a prediction from a Liberal whose not a lawyer, the Defense of Marriage Act and at least one. State gay marriage band will be ruled Unconstitutional with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Joining the Liberal Justices and property rights will be strengthen as well.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

ReasonTV: Video: The War on Fast Food: Can a Washington Suburb Fight Fat with Zoning?

The Princes George's County Council member in this video said that its her job to protect her constituents. And keep them healthy as if she's their mother or something when thats not her job but her job is to represent them. And protect them from things they can't handle themselves as it has to do with public safety and regulating the economy. Prince George's does have an obesity problem but so does the rest of the United States and prohibition doesn't solve the problem. It just sends jobs and business's to areas that will take them and takes money out of the areas. That won't take them so prohibition or over regulation in this case doesn't solve this problem it just. Sends it to other areas, so if the goal is to cut back on obesity in Prince George's, then the way to. Do that is by taxing junk food and drink and forcing people who live unhealthy to pay for their own healthcare. As a result of choosing to live unhealthy rather then passing those costs onto people who do live healthy. And doing things like making healthy food more affordable, as well as exercising, not by sending jobs and business out of your county.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Reason: Healthcare Reform: Peter Suderman: The Public Option and The Future of Healthcare Reform

The Public Option and the Future of ObamaCare

I was for the public option when it came to healthcare reform in 2009-10 and I still am but under in certain conditions. That it remains a public option and doesn't become a single payer health insurance system where government run health insurance would be the only game in town. And we all as a country would have to take it and pay for it we wouldn't have a choice. What I would be for is essentially making Medicare available to everyone who can afford it, adults that is. With kids still getting their health insurance from their parents and also allowing each state to set up their own Medicare system. The Federal Government wouldn't run a national health insurance or healthcare system but each state could have their. Own system but the Medicare public option would still compete with private non profit health insurers and be held to the same regulations. As non profit health insurers so Americans could get a very good idea of what non profit health insurance and healthcare looks like. In this country rather then people losing their health insurance even if they are still paying their premiums. Because health insurance companies want to make more money.

The public option idea is not a radical idea in this country, we already have public non profit health insurers. Like Medicare, Medicaid, military health insurance, some states have their own public options as it relates to health insurance. And a lot of other developed countries have a private/public health insurance system, France and Japan come to mind. Whose healthcare systems cost half of what our does as it relates to their GDP. We are not talking about a government takeover of the American healthcare system, again this is not single payer Medicare for all. And I'm not in favor of that, what this is, is an opportunity for everyone especially middle class Americans. Who are borderline in whether they can afford health insurance or not the opportunity to have access to affordable healthcare. And not be left out of the system because they can't afford it and passing those healthcare costs onto the rest of us.

Monday, January 14, 2013 Constitution: Robert Anderson: "Gun Registration Is as Bad as Seizure": How To Limit Gun Violence in America Gun Registration Is as Bad as Seizure: By Robert Anderson Silence rarely conveys knowledge, especially when it’s the result of intimidation. There are moments when it’s prudent...

To start off I believe that every American whose responsible and mentally competent and can afford to purchase, manage. And take care of of firearms in the United States is entitled to own a gun in this country as long as they aren't using them. Against innocent people and are responsible with them, so the question is what to we do with the rest of the population. The non eligibles when it comes to firearms in this country and how do we keep guns away from them and the idea. Is to not create a perfect gun regulation system because thats not possible but how to we prevent the most guns deaths from. Happening as possible and to prevent future gun violence from happening in America we need a broad comprehensive approach that. Deals with mental healthcare as well as regulation of the entertainment industry and rating the industry across the board. And making sure that parents in this country have all of the information that they need to keep their kids away from violent programming. That could inspire adolescents from being part of violent acts in the future.

But if we are just talking about guns and regulating firearms in this country we need to do it a responsible way. Thats Constitutional, that doesn't violate the US Constitution, any part of it by not trying to get around the 2nd Amendment. By not giving the Federal Government more power then it needs, it should have or violates the US Constitution. And not doing anything that would hurt the economy but creating a gun regulation system that meets this criteria. But also solves the problem that brings our gun violence down to an acceptable level not perfect, we'll always have gun violence. And other crimes in this country but we can do a lot better then we are doing now and to do this and I'm not. Acting as if there's any shot in hell of something passing like this in the 113th Congress which is divided but where there's division in both. Parties when it comes to gun control but again what I believe is the best way to solve this problem is having. A licensing system similar to how we regulate drivers in this country.

My National Gun Licensing System would only be national in the sense that each state would have their own. But the Federal Government wouldn't run it but the states would and it would be financed by gun owners themselves. And to own a gun anywhere in this country, you have to be mentally competent, 21 or over, an American citizen. Pass a background check to see or not if you have any outstanding warrants, as well as a violent felony record. And pass a basic test to show you know how to operate firearms in this country and are familiar with the responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

Again I would regulate guns like we regulate automobiles or planes and it wouldn't empower the Federal Government. But empower the states to deal with this issue on their own.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Ron Paul 2008: "Wealth Belongs To Those Who Generate It- Not To The Government"

Source: Ron Paul-
Source: Ron Paul 2008: "Wealth Belongs To Those Who Generate It- Not The Government"

I would add that most of the wealth that individuals create belongs to those individuals, but that government also has a duty to provide the services that it has the constitutional authority to provide that we need it to provide. Not what we want government to provide and takes taxes to finance what we need government to do for us.

Even if you believe in limited government, which I do as a Liberal, you believe in at least some form of government. Even if you believe in small government, which is what a lot of Libertarians believe in, you believe in at least some level and form of government. If you're a small government Libertarian and believe in the nation-state, you believe in at least some form of a national government. And generally small government Libertarians believe in federalism and the federal republic. And all forms of government needs revenue to pay for the operations that the people need government to do. Unless you want high tariffs and discourage foreign companies from investing in your own and don't support free trade, or you want to borrow most of the money that government needs to fund itself, you need a tax system to pay for your government operations. And that means the people people who consume those services pay taxes for those services. Low tax rates on everyone who can afford to pay them would fund your limited government. 

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Cato Institute: Video: Constitution: David B. Kopel: The Second Amendment in 2013

Libertarians and other devout supporters of the 2nd Amendment the right to self defense in America. Are now on the defensive on this issue, because instead of coming up or at least attempting to come up with solutions. To prevent future unnecessary gun violence, how do we keep guns out of irresponsible people and criminals. All they are doing is talking about the importance of the 2nd Amendment and that we shouldn't eliminate it. When the fact is no one serious in this debate is talking about eliminating the 2nd Amendment. And outlawing guns for individuals who wouldn't use them against innocent people but the debate instead. Is about how do we prevent future shootings of innocent people from happening in the future. And Libertarians have yet to join that debate and are still on the defensive as if this debate is about. Outlawing guns in America when the fact is no one serious in this debate is proposing to do that.

Friday, January 11, 2013

The Atlantic: Foreign Affairs: Simon Henderson: "To Stop Iran, Get a New Saudi King": The Future of Saud Kingdom

To Stop Iran, Get a New Saudi King - The Atlantic

If there's one country in all of Arabia and the broader Middle East that is in great position for an Arab Spring. That could make a smooth transition from a Authoritarian state to some type of Democracy where the government. Would be held accountable to the people, it would be Saudi Arabia which is a developed nation but with only 25M people. Thats a physically large country about the size of Mexico not quite as big that could be developed even further. And at some point could have 100M people comfortably, thats energy independent with oil and gas. But where social freedom is very lacking compared with most if not all other developed nations around the World. So if Saudi Arabia were to go from Theocratic Kingdom which they are right now to some type of a Democracy. The new government would inherit a lot to work with and not be forced to start from scratch which is what. Happened in Afghanistan because the Saud government has out the Saudi resources to work and developed the country. Unlike what's been going on in Iran or Iraq with Saddam Hussein.

But for the Saudi people to ever see freedom they are going to have to want it and standup for it. Because the Monarchs and Theocrats aren't going to give it to them and to this point one of the reasons how. The Monarchs have stayed in power is essentially by bribing the Saudi people with its vast oil resources. If Saudi women are to be treated equally as men then they are going to have to want that and if Saudis are. To have Democracy then they are going to have to want that as well with some type of Democratic movement. Emerging in Saudi Arabia which is what happened in Egypt and Libya and hopefully Syria as well. Because the Authoritarians aren't going to give up power because thats what they thrive on and thats how they stay in power. Once you take away their power or enough of it to fight back, they start collapsing as we saw with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. When his security forces wouldn't put down the Egyptian people.

I could see at some point if the Saudi people want this where Saudi Arabia transforms from Authoritarian Monarchy. To some type of Federal Republic where the Monarchy is still in place but no longer governing the country. And replaced by civilian rule which is what happened in Spain and Britain and some type of Federal Kingdom of Saud emerges in. The House of Saud rather then the Saud Monarchy running the country and Democratic rule emerges there. But for that to happen the Saudi people are going to have to want it first.

Roll Call: Congress: Abby Livingston: Senator Rockefeller Winning Streak in Jeopardy

Rockefeller Winning Streak in Jeopardy : Roll Call Politics

Senator Jay Rockefeller making the right play to step down when his popularity is fading and would've had a very difficult time getting reelected for a sixth term.

Thursday, January 10, 2013 Robert Wenzel: US Tells UK That It Should Stay in European Union: The Future of Europe US Tells Britain That It Should Stay in European U...: Yup, the collapsing EU is just where the US wants Britain to stay. In other words, the former Empire is getting a little lesson on how Empir...

To be frank the United States should stay out of the United Kingdom's business as far as what international organizations. It joins, Britain need to make that decision on their own and you can see why Brits are no longer enthusiastic. About being part of an organization of Socialist Republics that are drowning in debt and aren't growing economically. Britain has its own economic and financial issues it has to deal with which would be even worse right now. Had it joined the European Monetary Union back in the late 1990s and evaluating where they should be economically. When it comes to World affairs and what will there role of government be in the future, as well as what Britain. Will look like physically in the future, what's going to happen with Scotland and North Ireland, are they still. Going to be part of the United Kingdom or is the UK going to develop some type of Federalist system where. The English, Scots, Welsh and Irish living in Britain will have more independence to govern their own affairs.

The European Union is going through a similar transition and not sure where they are headed financially, economically. The role of their governments and where they'll be when it comes to World affairs either but they do know. They want a bigger role both diplomatically and with their military and they also know that the UK by itself. Has more influence around the World and perhaps even in Europe then does the EU and the EU would love to close those gaps. And are looking at creating a unified armed forces that would not only be and strong enough to defend Europe. By themselves but be able to address and play key roles in crisis's in the future like in the Middle East and North Africa to use as examples. But Britain would like to go solo because they already have the power that they need and want on their own. And aren't interested in being directed by Brussels or anyone else.

I don't see this happening in the near future but at some point within twenty years maybe we could see a European superstate. A brand new Federal Republic in Europe made up of a lot of the current EU states which would be a huge country. Of 300-400M people that would be in position to have the same influence and power that the United States. Has now and that China, Russia, India and Brazil will have in the future but Britain would never be part of this union. Because they are too independent.

WBAL-TV: Maryland: Maryland Schools Ranked No. 1 in Country For 5th straight Year

Maryland schools ranked No. 1 in country for 5th straight year | Education Alert - WBAL Home

Live in Maryland if you like good and great schools

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Reason: War on Drugs: Mike Riggs: Meet New US Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat With Some Liberal Ideas About Drug Policy

Meet New Congressman Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat With Some Libertarian Ideas About Drug Policy and Immigration

Its not just Libertarians who hate the War on Drugs but so do Liberal Democrats and if I had to guess Barack Obama. Is not a fan of the War on Drugs either but he's more concern about the politics of the WOD and how it plays. With Centrist-Independents but the problem with that calculation is that now a majority of Independents. Are against the War on Drugs and future for defenders of freedom and opponents of the WOD as the country. Is getting younger and more Liberal-Libertarian and will be electing more Liberals and Libertarians to Congress. House and Senate Liberals like Representative Jared Polis of Colorado and freshman Representative Beto O'Rourke. Senator Rand Paul a Conservative-Libertarian Republican is now in favor of letting the states decide if. Marijuana should be legal or not and get the Feds out of the way of that so we are headed into a future where. Drug warriors in both parties are losing ground and we are headed to a future where marijuana will be legal at least at the Federal level. Where states will be able to make their own decisions and perhaps even where harder narcotics will be decriminalized.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Reason: Economy: "Matthew Feeney: Eurozone Unemployment at Record High": Why America Won't Impersonate Europe

Eurozone Unemployment at Record High After EU Leaders Say Worst is Over

I saw an article in the Economist Magazine yesterday a publication I tend to agree with the cover, "America turns European". Implying that we are becoming like them, a lot of it had to do with our dysfunctional political system. But part of that suggests that we are becoming European ideologically as well, more Socialist, more faith in government. To solve our problems for us an take care of us, lets see Congress right now has an approval rating somewhere. Around 10% and the Federal Government's approval rating overall is probably not much higher. President Obama seems to be the only national politician with a favorable rating nationally but that doesn't. Mean anywhere near a majority of the country wants him to raise all of our taxes and give the Federal Government. More power and make our healthcare decisions for us and how to plan for our retirement or run our schools. And so fourth, the President's approval rating has to do with the fact that the economy is improving and his. Presidential reelection campaign not so much that we as a country want the Federal Government to run our lives.

When I saw the Economist article I wrote a counter to that on this blog that you might of saw arguing that Europe. Is becoming more American rather then the other way around, more Liberal and less Socialist as a block as they are cutting back. On their social insurance systems and becoming more engaged around the World in foreign affairs and becoming. More hawkish with their military's and so fourth but here's more evidence that America is not becoming more European. Only Germany right now out of all of the big economies in Europe has an economy thats even growing or has anything. Approaching what would be considered an acceptable unemployment rate at 6.9% with their GDP growing at around. 2% for the last quarter of 2012, their unemployment is about a percentage point lower then America's but both economies. Are growing at about the same level, so maybe America should be more like Germany or vice versa but. The Eurozone on average has an unemployment rate of over 11% and they are in recession.

At most 15-20% of the America would qualify as European Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists people. Who call themselves Progressives in America and they don't run the Democratic Party to put it mildly and are. Spread out over several different minor Progressive parties in this country so no America is not becoming. More Socialist or European and if you look at the Eurozone right now and then look at the American economy. We shouldn't be headed in that direction right now anyway.

Monday, January 7, 2013 Robert Wenzel: Has America Gone Euro-Socialist? Has America Gone Euro-Socialist?: Here's a clue from the cover of Economist magazine: Actually, to be more accurate, Obama should have been dressed as one of these tw...

I've read a lot of interesting blogs from the Economic Policy Journal, intelligent even though I tend not to agree. With them as a Liberal and the EPJ tends to be more Libertarian but this latest post from them quoting the Economist Magazine. Asking the question has America become more Euro Socialist are we now expecting our Federal Government. To provide the same services as the Europeans get from their Federal Governments and willing to pay for those services as well. And are we also willing to limit our freedoms to fend for ourselves and to make sure we are safer and so fourth. The answer is of course not what America is doing now is reexamining its role in the World but so is Europe. Especially with our debt and deficit situation but again so is Europe and what we can afford for our Federal Government. To provide for its people but again so is Europe but also what we are willing to pay for those services. But again so is Europe and we are looking at our Federal Government all across the board including in. Defense but so is Europe and if anything Europe is looking at expanding its defense budget.

The question isn't is America becoming more like Europe but is Europe becoming more like America as Europe. Is now scaling back the size and scopes of their Federal Governments and the main reason why they have the social insurance systems. That they have is because they don't have to worry about their national security because other people who don't. Live in those countries pick up the tab for their national security which is how we spend 6-7% of our GDP. On national defense where Europe spends around 2% of there's but with our debt and deficit situation we won't. In the future and I would argue even now continue to be able to afford to fund the national security for nations. That can afford to defend themselves, which means we'll need to either pull put of Europe all together or have. Them pay us to defend them or sell them the equipment so they can defend themselves but we'll no longer be. Able to give them their national security for free.

Another part of this as we saw in Libya and I believe we'll see in Syria and Mali as well, Europe wants a bigger. Role in the World when it comes to national security and foreign affairs and even become a superpower themselves. As they are watching the developments of China, India, Russia and Brazil and are seeing themselves have. Less influence on World affairs which could work out for both America and Europe to have a future superpowers as an ally in the World.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The Atlantic: Economy: Dashiell Bennet: What the Fiscal Cliff Deal Didn't Solve: Why The Federal Government is Dysfunctional

What the Fiscal Cliff Deal Didn't Solve - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Other then raising taxes on the wealthy for deficit reduction and avoiding most of the middle class tax hikes except. For extending the payroll tax holiday which is going to go back up which is just one of the tragedies of. This fiscal cliff deal, Congress and the President didn't do much more then once again do what they are the best at. Which is kicking the can down the road and creating some new artificial deadline in hopes of finally making. The tough decisions knowing that there's no guarantee of that happening either because Congress is Congress. And Barack Obama is still the President and they could once again in February or March decide that they are once. Again not ready to make the tough decisions and create really the one thing that the economy needs to finally take off. Which is certainty so investors and consumers know exactly what their taxes are and know what they can. Afford to spend and not to spend and once they know that, then the economy will finally take off to the point. Where we are looking at 4-5% economic growth with 200K plus jobs created every month, which would. Lead to falling unemployment as well as a falling budget deficit.

I really do believe that President Obama and Speaker Boehner the most powerful and highest ranking Democrat and Republican. In this struggle want to work out a compromise and both know that they have to compromise now instead of waiting. Until one party has all of the power again and start making these tough decisions now but the problem is that. They both know what its going to take to get our debt and deficit under control so they both aren't growing. Faster then our economy and if anything coming down, they both know what it takes to accomplish this. And what the final compromise would look like but the problem is that they are both worried about how. The fringes in their parties who have the attitude my way or no way would react to it and be called sellouts. And have their members in Congress face primary challenges if they agree to any compromise that actually. Solves the problems and gets this off of the national debate.

Neither Leader Barack Obama or John Boehner is strong enough and feels politically secure enough to take. On their bases and fringes and tell them we are going to make a deal that neither side would write if they had. The power to write their own deal and this is how its going to be and I'm going to tell my members they. Should vote for it because it solves the problems of the debt and deficit and will allow for the economy to finally take off.