Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Peter Schiff: Video: Michael Moore: Americans Wouldn't Need Guns if We Had More Welfare


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress

I don’t know where Michael Moore gets his facts if you want to call them that. More like talking points, spin and so-forth that the Far-Left in America uses to get their message across. But looking at the facts in America before concluding that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment or the right to self-defense because only ‘White people’ believe in it and use and buy guns so somehow under the far-left’s logic again if you want to call it that, but if you at the facts gun ownership is multi-racial in America.

But logic tends to be logical, so lets say ideology and under their ideology the Far-Left’s ideology 2nd Amendment is somehow racist because it only benefits one race in America. Look I don’t believe in that, just looking at the Far-Left’s arguments you know what this is why I don’t watch MSNBC. Even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, except for Lockup and perhaps the replay of Meet The Press because I like to sleep in on Sunday. Because they take people like Mike Moore and other far-Leftists seriously and treat them as people of wisdom and so forth.

Guns aren’t just in rural America and in the South where Anglo-Saxons tend to be a large majority in those communities. Go to a big city at some point like Detroit, Cleveland, New York or whatever the big city, these cities are very diverse racially and ethnically and have gun stores and other places where you can buy guns. And they are bought by mixture of people of different racial and ethnic groups. Freaking Ed Schultz Progressive talk show host on MSNBC owns firearms. This isn’t a racial issue or an ideological issue.

The 2nd Amendment in America has broad racial and ideological support because a wide range of Americans have use for firearms. Doesn’t mean as a country we don’t believe in gun control. But to suggest that the 2nd Amendment is racist and that Caucasians as a group buy guns to arm themselves against African-Americans is flat ignorance. The Far-Left in America likes to speak about the need for tolerance, equality, equal rights and so-forth. All things I believe in as a Liberal otherwise I wouldn’t be much of a Liberal. Except they don’t believe in tolerance when it comes to Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxons and rural Anglo-Saxon males. And in many cases their own race, which is why they are part of a fringe in America. Because Americans tend to believe that tolerance, equality and equal rights should apply to all Americans, not just minorities.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Lew Rockwell Blog: Society: Walter E. Williams: Are We Equal?: The Differences Between Equal Rights and Opportunity Versus Equality

Lew Rockwell: Blog: Walter E. Williams: Are We Equal?

I agree with professor Walter Williams that not all Americans are equal in the sense that we are all entitled to the same things. And we are all equally intelligent and equally educated and so fourth. But I get back to the notion in Dr. Martin L. King's I Have a Dream Speech where he says that he has a dream, that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Thats all people who are in favor of equal and civil rights are asking for. Not to be judged by race, or ethnicity and so-forth, but to be judged as an individual. And what they bring to the table as far as qualifications and so forth. And if that means that one person of one race is judged better than someone of another race, so be it. As long as they aren't judged by their race, but that their qualifications for the position or whatever they are competing for are better than the people they are competing with. Not that they are judged better based on race, or ethnicity. Social Democrats who seem to be in favor of equality across the board, that no one should be treated better than anyone else, I believe at least understand this. Which is why they are in favor of affirmative action.

The fact that seven or eight out ten professional basketball players in America are African-American, even though they only represent twelve percent of the overall population has nothing to do with racism. The overwhelming majority major league caliber basketball players in America are African-American. And the fact that African-Americans only represent around 10-15%, might actually be less then 10-% today of Major League Baseball players, has nothing to do with racism. And the fact that African-Americans only represent around five percent of National Hockey League players, has nothing to do with racism either. The facts are the overwhelming majority major league caliber baseball and hockey players in America are of a different race. It would only be racist if Caucasian basketball and football players and African-American baseball and hockey players were denied access to those pro sports leagues based on race. And not what they bring to those leagues as athletes.

Pro sports, is sort of an easy example of why not all people are equal. Some are just better at doing certain things than others, whatever the reasons are. Its not equality at all costs which is what we should be shooting for. That everyone gets an equal share from what's available in society. But what we should be shooting for is equal opportunity and equal treatment that we are all judged as individuals. And what we bring to the table for the things that we go for. Rather then being treated based on our race or other physical factors. That are not relevant to what we are going after.

Monday, March 25, 2013

American Thinker: Politics: Dr. Tom Barron: The Left's Moral Relativism: How Freedom Became Liberals Religion

Articles: The Left's Moral Relativism

I read a column in the right-wing Human Events  magazine today called and I'm paraphrasing. How Liberalism replaced Christianity as America's religion, I both agree and disagree with that. I disagree with that in the sense that there are plenty of Liberal-Christians, the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Is an excellent example of. That and there are Liberal-Christians today, such as President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry. Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader of the U.S. Senate. Former President Bill Clinton, all of these men are Catholics. Except for President Obama and President Clinton and the other two men are Protestants. The difference being and at risk of sounding partisan but the main difference between so called Christian-Conservatives and Christian-Liberals. Is that Christian Liberals take the Bible to heart and believe in things like live and let live, do onto others as. You would have done to you, looking out for people who can't fend for themselves and so fourth. Whereas so called Christian-Conservatives look at certain people and certain activities as completely immoral and must be looked down upon if not outlawed. Homosexuality is a perfect example of that.

Liberals aren't govern by an interpretation of the Bible but by the U.S. Constitution that was written by Liberal-Democrats and Libertarians. And we believe in things like equal rights, freedom of speech, right to privacy the separation clause and others. And look down on policies and people who would weaken these things. These are the values along with those Christian values that I just mentioned are what governs Liberals in America and lets be clear I'm talking about Liberals. Not Socialists or Social-Democrats but Liberals and its also true that younger people today right or left tend to be less religious. But its not just Liberals are are less religious but Conservatives and Libertarians as well. Doesn't mean that Christianity is disappearing in America but its not something that young people use to guide their. Politics and what's left of the religious-right in America are the only faction left that uses religion to base their politics around.

The idea of individual freedom is not that there's no right or no wrong. Its that right and wrong have more to do with how people treat each other on the left, rather what we do in our own personal lives. Just one example of how Liberals and the Christian-Right are different. The Christian-Right believes there must be some moral code that all Americans must respect and when people live outside of that. Code somehow they are immoral and being unreligious would be part of living outside of that code for them. And when people do things that are dangerous with their own lives. Liberals want to get those people help, the Christian-Right wants to lock them up which is just another example of how we are. Different but by the way America is moving, Liberals are in the mainstream on that.


Saturday, March 23, 2013

Liberty Pen: The John Stossel Show- Ann Coulter: The Neoconservative Case Against Liberty


Source: Liberty Pen- Ann Coulter-
Source: Liberty Pen: John Stossel Show- Ann Coulter: The Neoconservative Case Against Liberty

I'll give Ann Coulter credit for something. For perhaps the first and last time. Perhaps the first time I heard her make a good point about anything. That as long as we have a so called welfare state where we have to pay for others health care and mistakes and so-forth, that we shouldn't be forced to subsidize things that could add to those costs. Which is why she's against legalizing marijuana. Which as a Liberal I think about myself. I believe in a high deal of personal freedom, as long as it comes with personal responsibility and rule of law. The problem that drug warriors have and Ann Coulter being one of them, is that the argument that they use against marijuana is the same argument that can be used against alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. All drugs that have health risks and come with a cost for society and that we've decided as a country that we are going to tolerate those risks. As a cost for living in a free society and liberal democracy. And more than half of the country has already decided that marijuana is a risk worth taking as well.

Ann Coulter makes the best case for why marijuana and other illegal narcotics should be illegal. I still disagree with that for several reasons. That freedom has its awards and risks. So the question is who should be left with the power to make those decisions. Government making those decisions for us, or should the people be able to make those decisions for themselves and hold them accountable for the decisions that make. Rather than government trying to make decisions for people in how best to live our own lives. People they don't know and never met, generally from a far away place. The other problem that drug warriors have is their contradiction to their argument that they don't even see, or won't acknowledge. That is they are fine with alcohol, tobacco, steroids, prescription drugs, sugar, caffeine and so-forth. All legal drugs that have costs and risks for society that have harmed and ruined lives and have taken lives.

But marijuana and other illegal narcotics for drug warriors are not acceptable, because they believe it has high costs and risks, for society. That will harm people and ruin as well as take lives. And thats something they haven't been able to respond to. In any democracy or free society, there's going to be risks versus reward, benefits and harm. The question is who should make the decisions with how people live their own lives. The people them self who one way, or another will have to deal with the consequences of those decisions whoever makes them. Or government trying to make decisions for people it doesn't know from a far away place in most cases. And I'm always with the individual when it comes to our own lives.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Billy Blythe: Video: Vintage Redskins: Dave Butz, The Redskins Man in The Middle


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

Back in 1975 then Redskins Head Coach/General Manager George Allen traded for S.t. Louis Cardinals defensive tackle Dave Butz, who was probably the best trade that coach Allen ever made at least in Washington. Because Butz would go on to anchor the Redskins defense for the next fourteen seasons. While the Cardinals after the 1975 pretty much went in decline failing to make the NFC Playoffs for the rest of their time in S.t. Louis. After making the NFC Playoffs both in 1974 and 1975.

Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells didn’t have much in common, but they both believed in at least one thing together when it came to football. That you win football games by controlling the line of scrimmage. You run the ball well and stop the run, you protect your quarterback and pressure the other teams quarterback. And you protect the ball and come up with a takeaway or two.

You do those things well and you’ve dramatically increased your chances of winning. Because now you are in charge of who can move the ball down the field because you can run and throw. While your opponent is having their running game stuffed and consistently seeing their quarterback hit and under pressure. Joe Gibbs gets a lot of credit for the Redskins having such great offensive teams while he was in Washington as he should. But the fact is in his tenure and under assistant head coach Ritchie Pettibon, the Redskins except for maybe 1981, were always in the top ten in defense.

Because the Redskins were about as good as anyone or better than anyone in the 1980s at controlling the line of scrimmage. On both sides of the ball which is why their pass rush led by defensive ends Dexter Manley, Charles Mann and others including Dave Butz, was so good, because the Redskins forced teams to throw the ball a lot. And consistently throw the ball under pressure because they couldn’t run the ball.

Dave Butz was the anchor of the Redskins defense in the 1980s because he consistently commanded double teams if not triple teams. Because of his awesome size and strength, 6’7 300 pounds plus. Looked more like an offensive tackle with better mobility back in an era when defensive lineman weren’t generally that big. Which freed up a lot of one-on-one matchup’s for DT Darryl Grant, Dexter and others.
Chris Hamburger




Mises Institute: War on Drugs: Mark Thornton: Nullify The War on Drugs: Why its Time to End The War on Drugs

Nullify the War on Drugs - Mark Thornton - Mises Daily

I'm not sure nullifying the War on Drugs in the sense this is not the right time to be conducting this so called war. Is the right way to put this because as far as I'm concern there has never been a right time to have a War on Drugs that was designed to fail in the first place. Not on purpose but the right policies were never put in place to win this so called war in the first place. Because the whole idea of the War on Drugs is literally to punish people for their own good and prevent people from selling drugs to people. Who want them and that we are punishing you for your own good because you are too stupid to decide for yourself whether or not you should be smoking marijuana. Or taking heroin or cocaine or whatever it might be even though you are smart enough to decide for yourself whether you should drink alcohol or. Smoke tobacco or take steroids or prescription drugs that are more addictive. So this so called war was not only designed to fail but it contradicts itself in that it outlaws some narcotics but leaves others in. Place which aren't narcotics in a legal sense but are just as bad for you if not worse.

And what Americans are waking up to now, members of my generation and the Y Generation as well as some baby boomers. Is that a war thats not even a real war but a phrase like the War on Terror. Wars are fought between people and countries. Designed to obtain certain property or resources or to keep a country in place or to knockout a certain government. A war is not something thats conducted by a government against its own people to prevent them from doing things that they see as dangerous. So we are not talking about a war here but a phrase and lets just be clear about that. And the U.S Government's policy against narcotics in America has been a failure and people born in the 1960s, 70s and 80s know. This and perhaps know people who have been victims. Of their own governments policy towards narcotics and tired of paying taxes to lock people up in jail who aren't real criminals and aren't threats to. Society Americans aren't as dumb typically as our government gives us credit for being.

So when President Obama announces that his administration "has bigger fish to fry" then catching people who use or sell marijuana. That tells me he's familiar with political situation and if I had to guess given Barack Obama's own background and the time when he grew up. Is not a big fan of the so called War on Drugs and his position on it is mostly about enforcing current Federal law and not taking heat. From Independents for not doing that.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

OGS-SILENTCRIMES: Peter Landy: A Blueprint For a Just Society: How to Balance Individual Freedom With Individual Opportunity

OGS-SILENTCRIMES: A Blueprint for a Just Society: A society that allows their government to pass unjust laws plants the seeds of tyranny. When that same government is enforces its unju...

 A just society is a society where everyone has the opportunity to be successful in life and what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Where we are forced to deal with the consequences of being successful and failing. And where are taxed in a way that promotes economic and job growth, as well as success and that we have to deal with the consequences of our failures. But where we are all taxed in a way based on our ability to pay but still promotes success as well as economic and job growth. Thats the vision of economic-Liberalism and what it means to be an economic-Liberal. Not lets take from the wealthy to give to government to take care of the rest or to take from everyone to give to government. To take care of everybody, so we don't have any wealthy people or any middle class people to any poor people. But where we are all the same but a society that promotes opportunity and success and forces people to deal with the. Consequences of making bad decisions.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Reason: Ronald Bailey- Liberals Won The Social Culture War: Can Conservatives Win the Economic Culture War?: The Economic Battlefield of Ideas

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason: Ronald Bailey- Liberals Won The Social Culture War: Can Conservatives Win The Economic Culture War?

Lets face it, Liberals with the help of Libertarians have won the culture war. America has now become the country that Barry Goldwater envisioned when he ran for President in 1964. A big government out of our wallets and bedrooms country. Where both economic and social freedom are embraced and where ignorance and intolerance and governmental interference with how we live our lives and spend our money is looked down upon. Which is great news for Liberal Democrats who’ve been fighting for this type of country at least since Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992. But even as far back as when Jack Kennedy ran for President in 1960 before the social democratic wing of the party took over in the 1960s. And this is something that Liberal Democrats should celebrate, but shouldn’t relax because we have another political battle to fight and to win as well.

The next political battle in America won’t be a culture war as far as how much social freedom is tolerable and can  be afforded. Like I said Liberals with the help of Libertarians have already won that war. But the next political battle in America will be fought about what type of an economy do we want to have and what exactly will government’s role be in the economy. But this political battle won’t just be fought between Democrats and Republicans. But between Democrats and Democrats. Liberals who want to expand economic freedom for those who don’t have it so they have the same economic freedom as the rest of the country. The other side in the Democratic Party Progressive/Social Democrats who want government to have more control because they believe the rich are too wealthy and by in large don’t trust Americans to make their own decisions.

But what will also make this political battle interesting will that it will be fought between Republicans as well. Conservatives who want government to use market oriented ideas to expand economic freedom to Americans who don’t have it. And Libertarians who simply want government to get out of the economy all together. The New Gingrich wing of the GOP versus the Ron Paul wing of the party.
Reason: Stephen Prothero- Why Liberals Are Winning The Culture War

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Economic Policy Journal: Robert Wenzel- Murray Rothbard on Socialism's Incentive Problem: What State-Ownership Doesn't Work

Source: Robert Wenzel-
Source: Economic Policy Journal: Robert Wenzel- Murray Rothbard on Socialism's Incentive Problem

The main problem with state-ownership, or Marxism (named after Karl Marx) is the lack of incentives that comes from competition and individual choice. People making decisions and then seeing for themselves how they worked and didn’t work. When you have a central authority in charge of an economy, with the central government responsible for the management of the national business’s, those companies don’t have to succeed and produce in order to stay in business for those employees to keep their jobs. The state up to a certain point anyway, can simply just bailout the failing business’s and borrow the money up to a point to do that. When you don’t have competition, you don’t have to produce a good product to stay in business, because your customers have no other choices.

To get to why state-enterprise or state-ownership doesn’t work and why several different types of capitalist systems do work, is because with a state-enterprize economic system, you don’t have financial incentive to succeed. You are basically relying on people to be Saints and do good work and be productive for the good of society. And I’m sure there are Saints living on Earth and perhaps even I know a few of them, but there aren’t enough of them to make an economic system like that work and be functional. But that’s just one problem, but then you go to lack of competition, actually no competition if the state is the only game in town when it comes to airlines, or cars, or groceries, etc. They don’t have to produce good services, or products, because the people don’t have anywhere else to go.

Today’s debate in America and in most of the World is not whether we should have a capitalist economic system. But what type of capitalist system should we have. And Socialists even have their own version of capitalism which is common in Europe. Which is how even Socialists are now capitalists in America as well as around the World. As opposed to America which is more of a liberal democracy and individualist society, where there’s more incentive for the individual to succeed and make it on their own. Because again we’re not just allowed to set up our own enterprises and employ ourselves, but there isn’t a very generous safety net for us if we don’t. And Americans tend to like to be self-reliant anyway and not need government to take care of us. We’re proud of the values that Social Democrats in Europe and in America, tend to view as selfish
Robert Wenzel: Murray Rothbard on Socialism & Why It's Dead From The Neck Up

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

The Atlantic: Fiscal Policy: Elspeth Reeve: "Paul Ryan's Budget Fixes a Problem That America Doesn't Have": What is Fiscal Responsibility

Paul Ryan's Budget Fixes a Problem That America Doesn't Have - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire

Fiscal responsibility is not about balance budgets or deficit reduction. Is simply about priorities, these are the things that we need to spend money on, this is the money that we have and if thats not enough to. Spend on the things that we have to spend on for our own economic health, this is what we can afford to borrow. The old saying of if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority is so true because its a simple recognition that money isn't indefinite and there's a limit to the amount of money we can spend. Which is why both Congressional Democrats and Republicans want to pass a Federal budget this year to set priorities and get. Back to regular order and this is what we need the Federal Government to do. And when Federal Government sets priorities and has a budget, then they have fiscal responsibility.

A balance budget especially in a good economy would be a great thing and would allow us to stop adding to the national debt. And actually allow for us to start paying down the debt but a balance budget shouldn't be a priority over everything else. What our number one goal should be is to have a strong economy producing strong and sustainable economic and job growth with falling unemployment and. Poverty and without these things we'll never have a balance budget because we'll always have too many people collecting from public assistance in order to pay its bills. So attempting to balance the budget now with weak economic and job growth and doing nothing to strengthen economic and job growth and. Bringing down poverty, you might be able to reach that goal on paper but even if you do that, you'll still have a weak economy. With perhaps even more people on public assistance with all of the cuts you've made. Which will drive up your debt and deficit in the future.

I believe its now a good time to get the debt and deficit under control since the debt is now larger then the economy as well as growing faster. But as long as its done in a way that doesn't hurt the economy by cutting things we have to invest in to have a strong economy. That also goes along with some type of economic and job growth act that moves this economy forward. So we can start growing at 3-4% again with two hundred thousand jobs created each month with falling unemployment and poverty. Things that we have to have to ever balance the budget and keep it in balance.

Friday, March 8, 2013

WBAL-TV: Maryland: O'Malley Administration to Back Medical Marijuana Research bill

O'Malley administration to back medical marijuana research bill | Politics - WBAL Home

More freedom of choice coming to the Free State of Maryland instead of arresting sick people who take marijuana for their pain. And the next step here will be a bill to legalize Marijuana in Maryland and regulate it like tobacco.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Richmond Times: Richmond: Lawsuit Claims Prisoner Died Due to Neglect From Jail Employees

Lawsuit claims prisoner died due to neglect from jail employees - Richmond Times-Dispatch: City Of Richmond

I costs tax payers more to treat prisoners inhumanely then it does to give them the services that they need to be functional and to become productive inmates that could contribute to their cost of living.

The Atlantic: Crime and Punishment: Adam Clark Estes: Two Years in Solitary Confinement Is Worth $15.5M: The Problems With Solitary Confinement

Two Years in Solitary Confinement Is Worth $15.5 Million, These Days - Adam Clark Estes - The Atlantic Wire

I don't have a problem with isolating violent criminals with bad tempers who represent a serious threat to staff and other inmates. As long as these inmates are treated humanely while in isolation. Getting the counseling that they need for their temper and so fourth. Having real food and not forced to go long stretches without eating, being able to shave and shower on a regular basis and allowed to keep busy while. In isolation with reading material and so fourth, this is what should be going on isolation units in our prisons. Rather then just throwing people in there with nothing to do, no one to talk to and leaving them in there for up to years. Hoping they don't crazy if that and hoping they've learned the errors of their bad ways and will learn how to become model inmates. The latter is what we've been doing with our isolation inmates over the years and we are paying a heavy price for it. Having to leave people in prison at tax payers expense longer then they need to be if they were just given the opportunity to be productive while. In prison.

We as tax payers are paying for the living conditions and health and well being of our prison inmates. And since we don't have an unlimited amount of money, we need to get the best out of every tax dollar that we. Spend and that included our corrections system and that we actually need to have a real corrections system in America and not a prison or warehouse system. That we currently have in America right now and that means all of our prison inmates need to be treated humanely and given the opportunity to be productive. While incarceration so they can get a good education and work just not while they are in prison. Which so they can contribute to their cost of living while incarcerated but once they are released from prison and. Once again living on the outside and this even includes our most difficult inmates who we need to at least for a time house them separately.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

NBC News: Latin America: Carlos Raho: Analysis: Chavistas Begin Search for Latin America’s next ’Comandante’

Analysis: Chavistas begin search for Latin America’s next ’Comandante’

Its not that Socialism is the problem in Venezuela, this a country with a relatively small population and gifted in natural resources and people. With a good deal of land where Democratic-Socialism as it comes to the safety net or welfare state. Mixed in private enterprise thats well regulated with the right infrastructure and education systems could work in Venezuela. Socialism is not the problem, its the Neo-Communism that President Hugo Chavez brought to the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela. Where he tried to forcefully eliminate the Liberal opposition and perhaps other types of oppositions that weren't part of. The Socialist Party thats the problem in Venezuela. If you are going to be a Democratic-Socialist which Hugo Chavez wasn't as far as how he governed. You have to have Democracy, a certain level of freedom for the people in the country and not force them to be dependent on the Federal Government. For their survival, you need both economic and social freedom which is what they do in Europe including in Scandinavia. President Chavez wasn't much of a Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative or anything else but basically a. Neo-Communist dictator who tried to centralize all power in the country in his administration.

So going forward what Venezuela and Cuba should both be doing to prevent their talent from leaving the country. And moving to places that have more freedom, like Brazil, America or Canada, even Mexico, is incentivizing these people to stay. One of the problems that Iraq is facing since the fall of Saddam Hussein which of course was a great thing for the country. But one of the problems they've had since and when he was President there, was a lost of talent to other countries like America and in. Europe why live under authoritarian rule when you don't have to and you don't believe in Authoritarianism even when its called. Socialism when you can live in other countries where they have freedom, social, political and economic. So the next step for Venezuela and I think they are much closer to this then Cuba, is to figure out how to mix Socialism with Democracy. And build a real Social-Democracy where the Venezuelan people can thrive there.

This might sound horrible but its true, the death of Hugo Chavez could be a good thing for Venezuela. If they use it to build their country and not look for the next Hugo Chavez the Fidel Castro of Venezuela. But use this opportunity to have real elections with a real opposition party thats not put down. Just because they agree with the ruling party and build a real Social-Democracy modeled on. Social-Democracies that are common in Scandinavia and Brazil.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Brookings Institution: Video: Ron Haskins: America’s Welfare Transformation

Brookings Institution: Video: Ron Haskins: America’s Welfare Transformation

In 1996, a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton made Welfare to Work the law of the country. Requiring people who are collecting Welfare Insurance to prepare themselves to go to work, go to school, go back to school, get job training. Get help with job placement and in return would be subsidized for these activities. With child care and continue support that they were getting on public assistance. But the idea was that they would go to work and not collect public assistance indefinitely. And that states would get some flexibility in how they run their Welfare program. So we could see what’s working and not working. And as a result as well as with the economic boom of the 1990s, we saw millions of people get off of public assistance and out of poverty. And into the workforce.

When you subsidize success, work and self-sufficiency, you get more of it. When you subsidize dependency, which is what we did with the old Welfare system pre-1997, you get more of that. Which is what we saw where nothing was expected in the old Welfare system. And people could literally sit at home and collect public assistance checks indefinitely and not be expected to be working. You get more of that and what we did with Welfare Insurance, is exactly what we should be doing with Unemployment Insurance as well.


Sky Sports: Sky Sports Classic- EPL- Liverpool Reds vs Newcastle United- 4-3- 3/10/1997

This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal: Sky Sports: Sky Sports Classic- EPL- Liverpool Reds vs Newcastle United- 4-3- 3/10/1997

An actual shootout in English soccer. I didn't see this game obviously not being a regular viewer of the English Soccer League. But if there were more soccer games like this in America I think Major League Soccer would be a much more popular league. Americans regardless of the sport and perhaps even the activity, like action. We don't need to see high scoring games all the time, but we like it when offenses play a major role and when games simply aren't dominated by defense. We like defense to and that is one of the reasons why American football is still so popular. But I believe the main reason why professional major league soccer hasn't caught on as well in America as in the United Kingdom and Europe, is because the rules in soccer are so oriented towards defense. With the offsides rule, just to use as an example. But this game right here is where the offenses stepped up and you saw a more balance soccer game. Instead of both teams essentially playing for a scoreless tie. And you open up the rules in soccer more and liberalize the game and it could be more popular in America.

Roll Call: Opinion: Stuart Rothenberg: Can President Obama Put the House In Play in 2014?: What House Democrats Need From The President

Rothenberg: Can Obama Put the House In Play in 2014? : Roll Call Politics

If I had to guess in whether current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House in 2015. I would have to say no and not just because its way too early to call the House elections for 2014. But the economy is still weak with a Democratic President and issues like debt and deficit, as well as high. Unemployment and lack of economic growth are still the dominant issues in Washington right now. With a gridlocked divided Congress with both parties controlling a chamber of Congress. If I had to predict right now who will control the Senate in two years, I would have to say Senate Democrats. Still because they know how to fundraise, get out the vote, protect vulnerable incumbents, keep safe seats out of play and recruit. All things Senate Republicans seem to forgotten how to do since they've let the Christian-Right/Tea Party run their party. But that doesn't mean that John Boehner will be Speaker of the House in 2015 and Harry Reid will be Leader of the Senate in two years. The top two leaders in Congress but that its still too early to call these elections.

I wouldn't be surprise if Democrats win back control of the House in 2014. They need seventeen seats out of 435 and when they won back the House in 2006, they needed fifteen seats but they also didn't. Lose a single seat as well, something they weren't able to do in 2012, which is why they picked up eight when they could've probably of picked up fifteen or more seats. But the drive for seventeen has to start in their own caucus and avoiding primary challenges, protecting their vulnerable incumbents which. Takes money and people not retiring early and if they accomplish that, they then need to get to recruiting candidates. That can win in the targeted House districts they are going after. And that means recruiting Democrats who fit the district even if they are not completely inline with the House Democratic Caucus as a whole. Which is how they won back the House in 2006, recruiting Democrats who fit the district they are running in. Rather then the Democratic Party as a whole.

What House Democrats need from President Obama is a bit of a balancing act. They need his money, meaning him raising lots of it as he were running for reelection. And they need him to be popular and thats going to take a better economy with more Americans thinking the country is getting better and that. President Obama is at least partially responsible for that and then you have House Democratic candidates who run with the President. Which makes then look better and look better in the district and then make the case of why that person would be better for that district then the Republican incumbent. The trick is how do you do that and still have enough ammo to run on against Republicans. People you are going to have to probably work with to improve the economy.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Reason: Ciivil Rights: David Lampo: "Harvey Milk's Mixed Legacy": What Libertarians don't Like About Harvey Milk

Harvey Milk's Mixed Legacy

Here's just one example of why the Republican Party is a party with suicidal tendencies. 5-10% of the population in America is Gay, they also tend to be Conservative-Libertarian. Yet since the GOP is run by Neoconservatives or Theocrats even, they say you are not welcome in our party for the limited because of. Who you are attracted to and how you carry yourself even if that doesn't hurt anyone else. Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election by roughly five million votes and two percent. Lets say he wins the Gay vote overwhelmingly because they tend to be Conservative on economic and fiscal policy. Not saying that makes up the difference and puts Mitt over the top but roughly 120M Americans voted for President in. 2013 and roughly 5-10% of that vote is Gay, thats about 6-12M votes that Mitt essentially kissed off for fear of losing the religious-right. Gays voted for President Obama because he's with them on issues as they relate to civil rights and the GOP is basically a party. That believes that Gays don't even have a right to exist, which is just one example of why Republicans lost in 2012.

As far as Harvey Milk's mixed legacy as Libertarians might describe it. You have to understand that Milk was a politician who happened to be Gay not a Gay politician and that civil rights for everyone including. Gays wasn't his only concern and that not all Gays are on the right and here's another example of why Libertarianism is looking more fascist to me. Because if you don't go down the line with Libertarians on all of their issues and don't look Libertarian or classically Conservative to them. Somehow you are in favor of Big Government or something, rather then saying we might not agree with you on everything but there's. Enough there for us to say that we like you politically and so fourth, even if you are not a clone of Ron Paul.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Kay Jay: Washington Senators 1957 & 1959: A Little History of The Washington Nationals

Kay Jay: Washington Senators 1957 & 1959: A Little History of The Washington Nationals

I'm not sure that a lot of lets say younger Washington Nationals fans are aware of this. But there's actually history of Major League Baseball in Washington with the Washington Senators. That goes back to the early 1900s, or even further back then that that lasted up until the original Senators left for Minneapolis in the early 1960s. To when Washington was rewarded another MLB franchise in the early 1960s. Lets call them Senators Two, that were basically counted on to finish last every year until they left for Dallas after the 1971 season. So before the Montreal Expose relocated to Washington after the 2004 season, MLB already had a long history in Washington and the Senators even won a World Series in 1924 and at least one other American League championship as well.

And they did play in the American League as well in the same league as the Orioles. Where the Washington-Baltimore regional rivalry could've started in the 1950s or 1960s. Instead just in the last few years as both franchises have struggled to become contenders and finally reached that status in 2012. With the state of both the Nationals and Orioles franchises and the fact they play in separate leagues. But play each in two series a year every year and into the indefinite future. With both clubs young and very talented and poised to be contenders for a very long time. The Orioles-Nationals, rivalry is not only going to be real, but a rivalry between two very good teams. Making baseball in the Washington-Baltimore region very good for a long time. And something fans of both franchises will look forward to every year.

The Senators, were like the Pittsburgh Steelers before the early 1970s when the Steelers finally became really good under Chuck Noll. The Senators, even though they actually had plenty of very good and great players, similar to the Steelers in the 1950s and 60s, were expected to and generally obliged to finish in last place in the American League. And again similar to the Steelers, the Senators from time to time would come up with a good team and have a winning season and perhaps even contend in the American League. But the Senators were always underfunded, because their ownership under Calvin Griffith and Later Bob Short, were always very cheap and had a hard time drawing fans to their games. But Washington, like most other big sports markets, tend to need good teams to watch in order to turn out for their teams.

The Senators, weren't losers because Washington was bad baseball city and market. They were losers, because they put a lot of bad teams on the field on an annual basis. Or wouldn't have the right manager, or coaching staff, or a combination of all of those factors. The Senators, wouldn't have left Washington either in 1960, or in 1971, had they simply been managed well and gave their fans reasons for coming to their games. Washington, was not the same city and market in 1971 that it is today. Its much larger today, but as the Redskins have shown when their teams commit to winning, their fans commit to them and turn out for the games. The Nationals of today, have a great ballpark and very good team, because their management is committed to winning and their fans are committed to them. The Senators, could have had that as well and still be here today.


Liberty Pen: Video: PBS Firing Line: Thomas Sowell 1983: Human Capital, The Most Important Capital We Have



Without human capital or having enough human capital, countries simply won't have enough resources to build or continue a developed economy. And I'm not talking about human capital in numbers of people, there are plenty of large countries. That are still third world countries, Egypt, Iran, China even, as well as India but I'm talking about human capital in the numbers of people. Who have the skills to be successful in life and the ability to be productive for themselves with a. Good job that allows for them to be able to live a good life but the skills to be productive for the society as a whole. Because they are able to produce things that people want, need and can afford, so without human capital. Countries won't have the resources to be able to develop the other things that countries need to be successful economically, militarily and diplomatically. Because they won't have the skills sets to be able to do these things very well. So what countries need is human capital and then the freedom to be able to use those skills that they have to. Produce for the rest of the country.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Politics: Robert Wenzel: "Barack Obama's Plan to Obliterate the Republican Party": Why This is So Wrong

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Obama's Plan to Obliterate the Republican Party: The lefty Saul Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for R...

As a Liberal-Democrat who bases his political philosophy around Liberal-Democracy in the classical sense. That individuals should be free to chart their own corse in life as long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And there are actual Libertarians that I respect, David Boaz and a lot of the work at the Cato Institute. Nick Gilesspie, Matt Welch and Peter Suderman over at Reason Magazine and that magazine as a whole. We differ on the role of government as a whole but has the same basic idea of what individual freedom is and why it should be protected.  But in the last few months as real words like dictator, Socialist, Statist have been thrown around towards Barack Obama. Who also happens to be President of the United States and was reelected by a five million vote margin with over 320 electoral votes. In an election year with a bad economy and high unemployment, my list of Libertarians that I respect has gotten shorter. Because its not just the far-right in America who don't like Barack Obama period mostly for cultural reasons. But so called Libertarians are throwing around these terms as well.

A Statist however they define their political ideology is someone who centralizes all the power with their office. Usually comes to power in some type of revolution and replaces the state and local governments with people they trust. Similar to what's going in Michigan right now with Governor Rick Snyder, as well as limits individual freedom to how they believe people in that country should live and nothing else. Similar to what Christian-Theocrats want to do in this country. President Obama hasn't done any of that, what he has done is use the Federal Government to try to help create and environment where. Economic and job growth can be created that would benefit everyone by having the Federal Government invest in. Things that leads to more economic growth to create more jobs in America. Things like infrastructure and foreign trade to use as example, he hasn't stripped the states of power and attempted to eliminate. State and local governments or anything like that to use as examples.

Its one thing to not like someone or disagree with them but its another to say partisan things just because you don't like or agree with that person. Just to make them look as bad as you possibly can and if you are proven wrong, you can always say I have a right to my own opinion and so fourth. But if you are someone whose looking to bring in more followers and expand your base and get treated seriously. By the public and not just your core faction, especially for Libertarians you need to speak the truth. And layout why you disagree with President Obama and why you believe his policies won't work. Rather then just throwing labels around and hoping something sticks.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Libertarianism Dot Org: Video: Peter Ferarra: Social Security: "The Inherent Contradiction": The Purpose of Social Security



Social Security is simply a retirement insurance system, that it is its basically there for people who don't have enough of a pension fund. So once Americans become too unhealthy too work, meaning they are no longer physically and mentally able to work long enough to support themselves. Or aren't able to work at all and they don't have enough of a pension fund to pay their bills for. The rest of their lives, at least they'll have Social Security and hopefully not have to live off of their children. Who have their own bills to pay, as well as raising their own kids their parents grandchildren.

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement system, whether its a public retirement system run by the government. To go along with private pension plans or a single payer retirement system where its the only retirement system in the country. Nor should it be because we should all be worried about centralize power, one organization or another private or. Public that has so much power over us that we have no where else to go other then whoever holds. This power for us or over us but Social Security is simply there for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to pay their bills.