Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Liberty Pen: Ted Ralls- We Get The Politicians We Deserve

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To sound like George Carlin, we get the politicians that we deserve. Most if not all of us have voted for someone who has been elected to public office. And for those of us who haven't who you might be able to set up a small club and hold your meetings in a bathroom. Those people probably don't bother to vote. Or vote for losers, or vote for good people in a jurisdiction that has a lot of idiots or crooks. So if you voted for a crook even an oil slick crook, whose fault is that? The crook who knows they are a crook and is just doing what they normally do until they're caught? Or the good person who should know better than to vote for crooks and let their dog eat their homework before they voted?

I at least would argue that voters are always responsible for who they voted for. For anyone who voted for George W. Bush twice for president and now sees him as the worst president in their lifetime, they only have themselves to blame. For anyone who voted for Barack Obama twice for president and now see him as some weak moderate, or even worst. You had opportunities to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Jill Stein in both elections and instead went with the establishment Democrat. Crooked politicians (as if they're any other politicians) don't get reelected over and over because they have guns to all of their constituents heads. They're not Saddam Hussein, or some Marxist who says, 'Vote for me, or go to jail, or even die.'

Crooked politicians, stay in power by buying off their constituents and and taking a hell of a lot of money from groups that don't have the politician's constituents interests at heart and many times what they're protecting goes against their constituents interests. But the crooked politician always has to run for reelection to stay in power. And if they have a smart educated constituency they risk losing. Because someone steps up and says, 'I can beat this bastard and get the support to do it.' And the crook can get voted out. But as long as voters still use, 'the dog ate my homework' excuse and don't bother to do their homework before they decide who to vote for, crooks will continue to get elected and reelected and not be held accountable for their crookedness.
Mass Tea Party: We Get The Government That We Deserve! Especially When We Don't Hold Our Leaders Accountable

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

American Thinker: Opinion- Tom Trinko: Returning Power to the People

Source: Slide Player
Source: The New Democrat

I'm both a Liberal and a Federalist and for people who have stereotypical views about what Liberals and liberalism actually are and is especially on the Right, that might sound like someone who says they believe in both a federal republic and theocracy. Well which one do you believe in, the federal republic or theocracy? Because they are two different things. But liberalism and federalism, actually go together. Because they both believe in the notions that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Especially big centralized power like in government, or in national multi-national corporations, to use as examples. Federalism, says that you have a Federal Government for a reason. To deal with national issues that affects everyone. And then let the states and localities deal with the issues in their jurisdictions.

Federalism, doesn't say that you shouldn't have a Federal Government and that there isn't much if any role for the Federal Government. This isn't a libertarian philosophy even though Libertarians tend to support federalism. It just lays out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. We need a national defense. we need a national foreign policy and diplomatic relations. We need to regulate interstate commerce when economic crimes are committed by the same people in multiple states, to use as examples. You obviously have to collect revenue for your Federal Government. You need to prosecute and police interstate crimes. The Feds, have to fight and prosecute terrorism. You need a national infrastructure system so you know that people can drive from state to state.

But that the states and localities need to be able to handle the issues that go on their own state. Dealing with local crime, education, building their own roads, dealing with their homelessness and poverty issues, collecting their own revenue, regulating their own economies, etc. Not that the Federal Government doesn't have a role here, but that they shouldn't be in charge here and telling the states and localities, 'this is what you need to do here.' Without providing the resources to pay for what the Feds want to do. Where the Feds can and should come in is helping communities especially struggling communities, deal with their issues. And not just the government's in these communities, but the private sector, non-profits to deal with poverty, lets say. So everyone has a real shot to overcome these issues which are a national concern.

Federalists, just say that government needs to be limited to exactly what we need it to do. And that includes the Federal Government especially in a huge country with all of our land and people which is what America is. And that power needs to be decentralized and spread out. Let Wisconsin and Colorado, to use as examples figure out how to educate their kids, fight crime, deal with poverty and others issues in their states. Leave the Feds to deal with issues that we must have it doing. Like foreign policy and defense, terrorism, but interstate commerce and crimes, regulating the environment and energy policy, would be other issues. As well as assist local communities and states both in the public and private communities, deal with tough issues that they're struggling to deal with.
Harold Orndorff: American Federalism

Monday, January 18, 2016

All About Judy: Judy Garland- The Jack Paar Program 1962

All About Judy- Jack & Judy-
Source: The Daily Review

Before GetTV started playing reruns of The Judy Garland Show on every Monday night starting back in October, I had heard of her. But didn't know much about her. I thought she was an actress from the 1940s, or something and didn't have much if any idea who she was. That is the advantage of these great classic TV and movie networks is that it gives people such as myself who didn't start watching TV at all until the early 1980s a chance to see what entertainment, Hollywood and what life was like before I was born. Which is something that today's Millennial Generation, who are all about now and everything before that is old school to them, which is bad to them doesn't seem to grasp. But because GetTV plays The Judy Garland Show I now have a good idea who she was.

Judy Garland, was a hell of an actress, singer and comedian. She was good and funny enough to perform with, well Jack Paar. But Johnny Carson, the Rat Pack with Frank Sinatra and many other great performers. She was adorable, she was very lively, very funny and loved doing her job. She was probably a singer first, but she was a good actress and she was very funny and could make people laugh and also had one of the best and cutest laughs you'll ever see. As you see in this video on Jack Paar. The whole thing about these studio executives who didn't see her as attractive, I don't get all all. Was she Sophia Loren or Marilyn Monroe, or Lana Turner? Of course not, but most women and even entertainers are not. She was very cute, pretty and very good at what she was. Which is one of the best and most versatile entertainers of all-time.
All About Judy: Jack Paar Program- Judy Garland in 1962

Friday, January 15, 2016

Throwback TV!: Rodney Dangerfield on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson in 1981- I Get No Respect

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Throwback TV!: Rodney Dangerfield on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson in 1981- I Get No Respect

Every time I hear Rodney Dangerfield talk about his wife I think of the sitcom Married With Children and the marriage between Al and Peggy Bundy. They have two kids as well and that might be the only reason why they stayed married. To hear Al Bundy (played by Ed O'Neal) you would think you were listening to Hot Rod do his standup routine about his wife. But replace Mrs. Dangerfield with Peggy Bundy. They make so many cracks about their wives you would have to think they were drunk when they got married and had kids together. Otherwise why would a sane sober man marry and have kids with a women he doesn't like and isn't attracted to. Unless he's an idiot.

The 'I get no respect' routine is what made Rodney Dangerfield a star. And then add the wife bit and that makes the routine ever better. Because now Rod can say he doesn't even get respect from his wife. Again, how believable this is, you can decide for yourself. Maybe the only reason why Mrs. Dangerfield stayed with Rod is because she rather be with an overweight unattractive successful man, than a handsome well-built loser who can't even hold down a job as a burger flipper at a fast food joint. I mean how hard is it to flip burgers anyway. But perhaps you would have to ask Mrs. Dangerfield that yourself. And she also might show also show you how flip charcoal, I mean burgers as well. But you take away 'I get not respect', what does Hot Rod have going for him. But he played it as well and as long as anyone could.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Threats to Liberty

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Other than Martin O'Malley for the Democrats and Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, I don't see anyone who truly represents my liberal democratic values. Hillary Clinton, is probably too hawkish for me when it comes to foreign policy. And to weak when it comes to protecting our civil liberties. Neoconservatives, should actually love her in those areas. Bernie Sanders, Far-Left Democratic Socialist, who can guarantee every one in America one thing. Higher taxes on everyone who at the very least is currently paying Federal income taxes. He would argue that we would get that money back in better government services. He'll be swimming up stream with one arm trying to make that argument though.

You go over to the Republican Party and their best most qualified candidate Governor John Kasich, would probably actually make a pretty good Republican president. The Republican Party that is supposed to be the party of conservatism, only has too fiscal conservatives running for president right now. Governor Kasish and Senator Rand Paul and they're both around 5-10% in the national GOP polls right now. Donald Trump, a one-man reality show who is currently doing his impression of Joe McCarthy right now. Almost impossible to imagine how anyone like that could become President of the United States today. Senator Marco Rubio, nothing fiscally conservative about his neoconservative police the world foreign policy. But it would be a big boom to the military industry.

The rest of the Republican field, you have a bunch of candidates who claim they'll reduce government spending, but don't know how they'll do that. And then Ben Carson's and Senator Ted Cruz, could promise middle class taxpayers a tax increase with their flat tax plans. And go to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum and you have two Republicans who might get big government out of our wallets, but then put it in our bedrooms and personal lives instead. Jeb Bush, still doesn't know why he wants to be president and you might be able to argue that he doesn't and feels some family obligation to do it. Similar to Ted Kennedy in 1979-80. So other than Kasich and Paul, I don't see anyone in the GOP who would perhaps even try to protect both our economic and personal freedom.

I want a presidential candidate a real liberal, who'll protect both our economic and personal freedom. Who won't put national security over civil liberties, but will instead weigh them equally. Who won't put their cultural and religious values over freedom of choice and personal freedom. Who'll will allow free adults to be exactly that as long as we aren't infringing on someone else's freedom. And holds us responsible for the choices that we make. Who won't try to contract economic freedom, but instead try expand it for people and communities who currently don't have it. Through economic development, infrastructure investment, job training, education, small business loans. Things that government can actually do to expand economic freedom. And right now other than Governor O'Mallley and Governor Johnson, I don't see that presidential candidate.
Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Threats To Liberty

Monday, January 11, 2016

The Lazy Cow: Rodney Dangerfield's Funniest Jokes Ever On The Tonight Show

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Lazy Cow: Rodney Dangerfield's Funniest Jokes Ever On The Tonight Show

I'm not an expert on Rodney Dangerfield, but I believe this is his best performance on this show. This wasn't an interview at all. Johnny Carson, maybe asked Hot Rod one or two questions. And Rod just did his act with one wisecrack after another. Mostly about his wife and kids which might be why male comedians get married so they can have people they know really well that they can make fun of. Unless they're always on the road and when they're in town they mostly are just hanging out with their mistress and their bastard kids they're keeping a secret in some hell hole of an apartment, its their wife and kids that they know the best.

This wasn't Hot Rod's, 'I get no respect routine.' Where he goes off on some airline for giving his first-class seat away because he was five-seconds late for the flight. Or the great view of the bathroom that he gets when he goes to his favorite restaurant. This was his, 'my wife and kids routine.' Where he goes off on his wife Mary, for sleeping with other guys, because she has to have sex and every time she sees her husband naked she just laughs and can't performed adequately as a result. And his son Joe, for being so dumb and wild that he believes every time Joe goes out he needs a leash. So he doesn't run into doors, because he forgot to open them. And his daughter Sally, who sleeps with her teachers, because she's too dumb to do the work in school. And he did a great job.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Tenzin Tsetan Choklay: Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Meet the Press

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Tenzin Tsetan Choklay: Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Meet the Press

In this whole video I was most impressed with Pat Moynihan when he was talking about what became Welfare to Work in 1996. Which is what he supported when he worked for President Richard Nixon in the 1970s. The Nixon Administration, actually proposed what became the 1996 Welfare to Work Law, but in 1969 and pushed it in the early 1970s, but couldn't get it through a Democratic Congress. He advocated for child care grants, so single mothers could go back to school and go to work. He advocated for job training and even work requirements for people on Welfare. So they're simply not collecting government checks, but not trying to move off of Welfare all together.

Now of course as Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, he voted against the 1996 Welfare to Work Law when Congress debated that bipartisan bill that was signed by President Bill Clinton. But before he came to Congress in 1977 that is the type of Welfare system that he wanted. An insurance system for uneducated adults who have kids too soon and aren't ready to take care of them. Who need help getting by in the short-term, but also help them become independent long-term and off public assistance all together. Because they're getting child care assistance for their kids. They're going back to school, they're working for perhaps the first time in their lives and getting themselves the skills to get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Bastiat Institute: Milton Friedman on Poverty

Source: Bastiat Institute- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Milton Friedman, making a great point for why inner cities are depressed. Having to do with poverty, bad schools, the awful War on Drugs and at the time back in 1993 pre-Welfare to Work, the bad Welfare system. That encouraged low-skilled low-income adults, especially with kids, not to work, but to get on public assistance. Because of all the government benefits that came from not working back then. As well as at least a certain extent the breakdown of low-income families. Where the father in many cases not in the picture. Leaving the mother who doesn't have much of an education to raise her kids by herself. These were big reasons for the Los Angeles riots of the mid and late 1960s, as well as Detroit. And reasons for big inner city poverty today.

You reduce poverty in inner cities not by increasing government cash assistance. But by making quality education K-12 available for everyone. Especially for people who come from single-parent low-income communities and families. As well as making higher education affordable for everyone. You have a Welfare system that encourages work and independence over unemployment and government dependence. And that means making education and job training a requirement for everyone who doesn't have it, but is collecting public assistance, even if they're working. You don't abandon low-income communities, but instead encourage economic development there. Rebuild schools and and have school choice especially for low-income parents and students.

Instead of putting public housing units in the worst neighborhoods possible, stop doing that all together. And encourage private companies to build affordable housing with subsidize rent for low-income families. As you're doing community policing and reducing crime in those communities. As you eliminate the War on Drugs and instead fight illegal narcotics as a public health condition for the users and you're improving education with choice,  better schools, more economic development, quality affordable housing, a Welfare system that encourages independence over dependence, through education and work and not more cash benefits. As well as more infrastructure investment and you would see more people moving into Detroit and Cleveland, to use as examples. Instead of leaving there.

Poverty and ghettos, didn't happen by accident. Bad government policy are a reason for how it happened. As well as bad personal choices by too many Americans. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having communities that are dominated by one particular race or ethnicity. Until that community is economically depressed, because of lack of education and economic development. That is when it becomes a government problem, because that community will end up consuming a lot of public assistance and receiving Welfare instead of paying into it. Which also hurts the economy and job growth having communities that simply can't afford a lot of the products that the private sector is producing. Which is why economic development, quality education and productive Welfare system that moves people off of public assistance, are so important.
Bastiat Institute: Milton Friedman on Poverty

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

The New American: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The New American: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise

Just to start off with some of the things that Dan Smoot says here. I think you would get a more intelligent analysis from Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity about liberalism and so-called modern liberalism, than Dan Smoot. And that is not a complement. He lumps liberalism in with communism and fascism. Liberals, believe in human rights and individual rights. Communists, don't and believe that a state strong enough to take care of everyone you wouldn't need individual rights. Because everyone would be taken care of by big government. Liberalism, is about liberty, liberation and liberalization. Not statism, especially in a communistic, or theocratic form.

Now as far as what Dan Smoot's main point about President Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I basically agree with everything he said here, except the nonsense about so-called modern liberalism. President Johnson's goals with the Great Society, was to create a country where everyone would be freedom from anything bad, especially poverty, but discrimination as well. He and his administration, with help from a Democratic Congress and Progressive Republican support in both the House and Senate, otherwise those programs don't pass, built off the New Deal and added new welfare rights to the American safety net. But didn't create some Scandinavian welfare state, where the central state becomes responsible for managing everyone's welfare for them.

So Dan Smoot, is wrong here about what liberalism actually is and what Lyndon Johnson was trying to accomplish with the Great Society. But was right about the dangers of a superstate big government welfare state that assumes responsibility for the personal and economic welfare of each and every individual. But that is not what we have in America and never will. Unless more than half of the country goes on a month long marijuana high and elects Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders President. But you might have a better shot at seeing snow in Atlanta at a Braves games in July, than Stein or Sanders ever getting elected President of the United States. So nothing to be worried about.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Economic Policy Journal: Yonathan Anselem- 'Progressivism is a Blob of Alleged Rights That Results in Nothing But Structural Disorder': A Look at Modern Progressivism

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Economic Policy Journal: Yonathan Anselem- 'Progressivism is a Blob of Alleged Rights That Results in Nothing But Structural Disorder': A Look at Modern Progressivism

This blog uses terms like Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, New Marxist, Neo-Communist and New-Left, to describe people who we at least see are to the left of what would be called Progressives. In the Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, New Deal and Great Society sense. Progressives, do have a big role when it comes to government and using government in America to create progress. Create an environment where everyone can  succeed in this country, but on their own. Where you don't need to come from wealthy parents to succeed in America, because everyone has the access to a modern infrastructure system, a quality education through higher education. A public safety net for people who truly need it, but not a welfare state to manage everyone economic and personal affairs for them.

The so-called Modern Progressive, who are really Democratic Socialists in the Bernie Sanders and back in the 1970s George McGovern, believe that the New Deal and Great Society simply didn't go far enough. They see the private sector is too big, the Federal Government too small, too much individualism in the American economy, taxes too low across the board. And as a result the Democratic Socialist believes the American economy is an economy where people can do too well in their view and where everyone else doesn't have enough. So they would say you need a big Federal Government to make up the difference and pick up the slack for the shortcomings of the private sector. You need to tax everyone at high amounts so everyone has what they need to live well that is provided by the Federal Government. And heavily tax the wealthy to take care of the poor.

So when this blog talks about lets say Franklin Roosevelt and his presidency, we do talk about the New Deal, the modern infrastructure system, but we also talk about World War II and the national security state that his administration created. Because progressivism, is a modern mainstream Center-Left philosophy, that generally sees America as a force for good (to sound corny) and America as a great country. To the point that it is worth defending and that we need to be strong enough to defend ourselves, but also defend our liberal values around the world. Of freedom and human rights and help people who are struggling to obtain those things for themselves. Where we and our allies can make a positive difference. Because Progressives understand power and aren't anti-military and use of force.

It is not just that Democratic Socialists today, tend to see government as too small and taxes too low and that government doesn't do enough for the people, but that our military are the real terrorists in the world. And that they believe that minorities deserve special protection and some right never to be criticized, at least not by majorities. And that masculinity is a bad thing and that men tend to be bad and what America stands for tends to be bad things. They are way to the left of what the Roosevelt's and Harry Truman and LBJ ever were ideologically. They are a new leftist political movement that
might considered mainstream in Europe, but look like Far-Left radicals in America. Just like the Christian-Right may look mainstream in the Middle East and South Asia, but look like Far-Right radicals in America.

Monday, January 4, 2016

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot- Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: My Twitz World: Dan Smoot- Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

'Should we negotiate with Communist China?' Is sort of a moot question since we already do. And have been for over forty-years now since the Nixon Administration. And we negotiated with Russia the whole time during the Cold War. Russia, which was a much larger threat than China ever was. At least militarily, but never had the economic strength that the People's Republic of China has today, because the Soviet Union was a total Marxist state, with a complete centralized command and control economy. As the total isolation of the Communist Republic of Cuba showed the least almost sixty-years now, you don't improve Communist states by simply ignoring them.

By America engaging with Russia and Communist states in Eastern Europe during the Cold War proved, was that America was by far a superior society and country. Not a people, but our values and form of government, our freedom, was far superior than anything the Communists could offer their people. We proved that by showing the people in those Communist countries what freedom and democracy were about and why they would want those things for themselves either in America, or back home. Americans, didn't emigrate to Russia during the Cold War for the most part. But Russian and other Slavs in the Soviet Union, as well as Jews, emigrated to America during that period.

So of course America should be negotiating with Communist China, Communist Cuba and Communist Korea, as we did with Communist Russia during the Cold War. Because it simply works, because it allows for people on both sides to see for themselves without government propaganda, the differences between freedom and statism. The quality of life that someone has in a liberal democracy, or even social democracy like in Europe, compared with how they would live in a Marxist state. Where there's no such thing as freedom and individuality. Just a superstate, an obese big government, that is addicted to controlling their own people.