Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway

Monday, December 19, 2011

Invest Iiguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- How to Stay Free

Classical Liberal
Invest Iiguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- How to Stay Free

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said, “because that’s where the money is.” Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property. To house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet Cabinet position or look to run for President themselves. Progressives, especially make the arguments that our Federal Government is small compared with Europe. As far as what their federal government’s spend on GDP compared with ours. And that they don’t have the same campaign, lobbying and corruptions issues that we do.

Well, today’s Progressives are correct in a sense, but most of those countries compared with the United States are fairly small. If Europe were to unify then they would match up pretty well with us in population and with their economy. Also Europe’s freedom of speech protections, are not as liberal as ours. And some of the things that American lobbyists do in Washington would be illegal there. European company’s and organizations that do business in America, lobby Washington like when it comes to mergers, trade, taxes and those sort of things. The Federal Government now spends 25% of U.S .GDP. Up from 18-19% in 2000. If we got back down to 18, 19 or even 20% of GDP, we could eliminate a lot of the corruption in Washington, because the Federal Government wouldn’t have as much power and control. And lobbyists would have to spread out and go to over places, if we simply decentralized the Federal Government. And passed more power down to the state and local government’s and even the private sector.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

HBO: Dennis Miller Live- Bill Maher & Dennis Miller: Free Speech vs Political Correctness

Source: HBO-
Source: HBO: Dennis Miller Live- Bill Maher & Dennis Miller: Free Speech vs Political Correctness

In a true marketplace of ideas where there's truly free speech that anyone can basically say whatever the hell that they want as long as they are not yelling fire in a public place, threatening to hurt someone ,or falsely libeling people, all ideas and all views would be out in the open. And then the better ideas and views would win and its that simple. And of course if you live in a place where morons are in charged, take the Middle East to use as an example, where you can get the death penalty for banging your secretary or driver, if you're married, or where women can get arrested for driving, which is as intelligent as trying to take a nap in a Fireplace with a Lit Fire, assholes win out because the people tend not to feel strong enough to take them on.

Put ignorant people in charge and you see ignorant policy's put in place. Then the ignorant ideas and views are going to win out, but the good thing about a lot of the rest of the world especially in democracy's, people tend to be somewhat intelligent. Because they don't have to worry about getting arrested for going to school, especially females and in especially in a liberal democracy all speech except for what I laid out, is free speech. People have the right to express themselves out in public. Free speech is just as protected by the U.S. Constitution for very friendly intelligent people (Teddy Bears as I would call them) as its protected for pardon the term, assholes.

Even hate speech is tolerated. So if a bunch of clowns or ghosts wearing capes get together and hold a rally and a march preaching the message of Caucasian purity and non-Caucasian Protestant people are evil, they can do that. And perhaps convince two more people that they are correct, two other asshole high school dropouts. Who blame everyone else including immigrants for their lot in life. Not having the intelligence to realize, that if they bothered to stay in school, they wouldn't be ignorant and asking people if they want paper or plastic, or if they what fries with that to make a living. Because they would have the skills to get a good job and meet people who don't look like them. And see that they are people to who are basically looking for the same things in life.

If you have a liberal democracy you're going to have an intelligent country for the most part. Instead of having government control all the information and just use it to for their benefit. And people will be able to go out, get educated, get a good job and see the world as it is. Thats for the people who bother to go and stay in school and get educated. And for the people who don't bother to do those things or grow up with parents who didn't do those things, thats where assholes come from. Because they don't know any better. So they make brilliant decisions like deciding people are no good because of how they look and other things. And they suffer as a result because they limit who they are able to communicate with. Because intelligent people tend not to like assholes, well because they are assholes.

But in a liberal democracy you can have hate speech because you are a liberal democracy and ignorant people are in the minority. Otherwise the country couldn't function and the good ideas win out and are put in place like the U.S. Constitution. And ignorant people are seen for exactly what they are, making expressing their stupid opinions. Giving the rest of the country a great laugh.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Role of Government in The Economy

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Role of Government in The Economy

This is the perfect debate to be having today in 2011 going into 2012 when we have a fragile economy with another general election coming up. As it was a perfect debate to have in 1992, when the economy was struggling to get through a recession. What should government's role in the economy be. You talk to Conservatives or Libertarians they would tell you not much. That government especially the Federal Government, already plays too much of a role in the economy. With all the taxes it collects, money it spends and regulations it imposes.

So-called Progressives on the opposite end of the political spectrum, will tell you the reason why we have a weak economy, is because the Federal Government doesn't tax and spend enough. Or impose enough regulations that if it just did more of these things and we became more like Europe with the Federal Government doing more to create economic and gob growth. By spending money and building things, creating new Federal programs that hire people to build things. More government works projects. Like a Public Works Administration or a Job Core and other Federal programs.

That the Federal Government should play a much larger role in economic and job growth and put people back to work. Liberals such as myself want to see a combination of things, but nothing that restricts individual liberty. Like new taxes or restrictive regulations, but with things like tax cuts to encourage consumer spending. To drive up new consumer demand, infrastructure investment to put more people to work and expanding foreign trade.

This debate has been going on for at least thirty years actually back to the 1930s or longer during the New Deal. What should The role of government especially in the economy and what should the role of the Federal Government be as well. Should it be doing less or more, do we tax and spend too much or not enough. Do we regulate too much or not enough basically. How should we reform the Federal Government or not. Or should be cut back the Federal Government and pass more power down to the states and private sector.

I believe the best way to make the Federal Government better and more efficient, is by reforming it. Figuring out what exactly it should do by what's laid out for it in the U.S. Constitution. And what should it be doing based on the U.S. Constitution and what it can only do. And what it does better than state government's and the private sector and then go from there. And to me that gets to defend, protect, represent and regulate. Cut back in the areas of the Federal Government shouldn't be doing at all that any government shouldn't be doing.

And give more authority to the states and private sector in the services where there's a clear need. But could be run better than the Federal Government. Slash and burn doesn't take care of the problems it just passes them on. This is a debate that's been going on forever and will never be solved probably unless some type of consensus or compromise is reached. And is a debate that's important and that we should have especially in election years to figure as a country which direction we should be going in.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Talking Points Memo: Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

Source: Talking Points Memo-
Source: Talking Points Memo: Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

If there's one political campaign as well as the record that has followed their post-political campaign that has determined the rest of their political career its Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign for vice president and just about everything thats come after that campaign following 2008. And why Sarah Palin will never be President of the United States and may never run for President of the United States. Because even though its only been three years since Governor Palin has come onto the national scene, there's already a library of material that could be used against Palin. Making her look like Mrs. Not Ready for Prime Time.

Seeing Russia from her backyard making her an expert on foreign policy, was just the opening act that kept people in the theaters. And wanting to see the movie again, renting the movie when it comes out, buying their own copy, giving the movie to people for gifts, selling the movie to people. Standing in waiting lines or making reservations to see the movie.

And three years later because of the success of the Sarah Palin Movie, The World According to Sarah Palin, a real life comedy, there have been sequels to this movie. That if anything are more popular and have also won awards for Comedy of The Year as well. The reason why Sarah Palin is not running for President right now, well Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry beat her to it. So she would have to compete with two other people and they are already showing America how not to run for President. So that would be one lesson in how not to run for President that Sarah Palin wouldn't be able to teach the country.

We have a real life comedian in Sarah Palin and we can all thank Senator John McCain, who already has more thank you letters than votes in Congress for introducing Sarah Palin. What was Senator McCain thinking when he was considering his vice presidential nominee? By the way, most of those of those thank you letters coming from Democrats, I sent a few myself. Would've sent more but the stores were all out of thank you Letters, ironically all going to the same person.

Hum lets see, we already have the most unqualified President of the United States in George W. Bush. How do I top that and they put together a national search to find this person from East to West and then figured out that America has more than 48 States. Wait there's one state we haven't checked yet lets go up to Alaska and take Governor Sarah Palin. Someone who believes that since Alaska is so big, that the whole country if not world is located in Alaska.

Which is why Palin says the things she does, she simply doesn't know any better. She believes the whole world revolves around Alaska. Which I gotta admit is a big beautiful state that I would like to see some day. But 310 million people live in the rest of the country. Snd things that Sarah Palin says like about Russia, blood libel, etc, may sound brilliant in Alaska, but ignorant to a lot of the rest of the country.

One book that Sarah Palin could write should be about how not to run for Vice President or President of the United States. Because she's experienced in that first hand, simple title, "How not to Run for Vice President." By Sarah Palin and this book would be used as Politics 101 in most political science courses. Even though the Far-Right which includes the Religious and Neo-Right and elements of the Tea Party, all love Sarah Palin. And probably want her to run for President. Despite all of this she won't run for President in 2012 and I'm willing to wager ever because of 2008-11. Notice she's been pretty quiet lately because she's already the punching bag for the Democratic Party. Replacing George W. Bush someone who seem not replaceable just three years ago.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- The Welfare State

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- The Welfare State

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government. Because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival.

I’m not against Welfare Insurance or a safety net. I just don’t want it run by government, but have government regulate it instead. And instead have government do the things that they are traditionally efficient at. National security, foreign policy, law enforcement and regulation. Including regulating semi-private non-profit self-financed community services that are in the business to help people in need. Yes be able to sustain themselves in the short-term while they are working to get themselves on their feet. But empowering them to get themselves on their feet. With things, like education, job training and job placement. Instead of allowing them to stay on public assistance indefinitely where nothing is expected of them. Collecting public assistance checks financed by people who work for a living.

What I would like to do with our safety net instead is turn all of these programs over to the states in the short-term. Including things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance. For the States to set up their own safety nets and public assistance systems. That would be run by semi-private non-profit, self-financed community services. In the business to help people in need sustain themselves in the short-term, but empower them as well. To get themselves on their feet and become self-sufficient taxpayers with jobs and paying their own bills. Because they got assistance to get themselves educated and get job training. And help finding a good job that could support themselves and their families.

Also things like public housing, Food Assistance and other programs that are in the business to help these people get by. But also help them become self-sufficient so they can take care of themselves and no longer need these programs. And I would also include homeless assistance through housing centers that give people a place to stay in the short-term. But also help them get a job and their own place to stay. I’m all for helping people who are down get themselves up. I believe a 20% poverty rate is a disgrace in a developed liberal democracy the richest country in the world is a disgrace. The difference being that I actually want to help these people empower themselves so they no longer have to live in poverty. Not stay on public assistance indefinitely and then complain about how many people live in poverty in America. And what to do about it, we know what to do about it and how to help these people and we need to do these things. Instead of just complaining about our high levels of poverty.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's game: 1972 Miami Dolphins

Source: NFL Network- Miami Dolphins DT Manny Fernandez-
Source: NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's Game: 1972 Miami Dolphins

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Are Health Care Costs Controllable?- From 1994

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Are Health Care Costs Controllable?- From 1994

President Bill Clinton did a smart thing and made a solid contribution to the health care reform debate back in 1993-94. When he put it on the national agenda and actually offered his own plan. That he sent to Congress, unlike President Obama in 2009-10 even though it crashed and burn. When Senate Republicans were able to block the legislation in the Senate let by Minority Leader Bob Dole. But to be fair Senate Democrats probably didn’t have the votes to pass the bill. And the Clinton health care plan never made it out of the Democratic House either. But what President Clinton was able to accomplish was to let Americans know how serious a problem it is.

When so many people in America, in 1994 roughly 40M people are unable to pay for their health care, which means the rest of us have to pay their health care bills for them. The hospitals pick up their health care for the people who can’t afford it and pass those costs onto people with health insurance. Which makes people’s health insurance more expensive, because now they have to pay not only for themselves and their kids. But to pay for people who don’t have health insurance as well. Just backing up libertarian commentator Milton Friedman’s notion, that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. We all pay in one way or the other. What President Clinton was successful in doing in health care, was passing SCHIP- State Children’s Healthcare Program. I don’t agree with the design of the program, like relying on people to smoke to finance it. But it did give more children health insurance as well as reforming Medicare in 1997 with a Republican Congress.

I believe bringing down our healthcare costs are fairly simple and something we have to do for our economy. 18-20% of GDP is way to expensive especially when most of our competitors spends half of that. And it gets to expanding health insurance or health savings accounts for everyone, so we all pay for our health care one way or another. And the individual mandate is a way to do that, as well as a public option not mandate. That people could go to for their health insurance. Not a one size fits all solution from the Federal Government. But having each state set up their own health insurance system to meet the needs of their own population.

And then we also simply have to do a better job taking care of ourselves and this gets to individual responsibility. So we don’t have to consume as much health care in the future, encouraging healthy behavior and discouraging unhealthy behavior. One of the reasons why I’m in favor of what I call a Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax. So we could tax unhealthy behavior and encourage healthy behavior. President Clinton did a good job of at least advancing the health care reform debate in America and putting ideas on the table. Like the health insurance mandate that was in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. But screwed up the selling if his plan and tried to make it be everything to everybody. And didn’t do a very good job of selling his own plan and defending the attacks of his plan. From Congressional Republicans and their allies.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- Where is The GOP Headed?

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- Where is The GOP Headed?

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats. Giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986. And make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader the next Speaker of the House. The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985.

And the GOP also had young leaders in Congress that would lead the GOP in the 1990s working their way up the ranks. Like Representative Newt Gingrich who would later serve as Minority Whip and then Speaker of the House. Representative Trent Lott who served as Bob Michael’s Whip in the 1980s. Elected to the Senate in 1988 and then serve as both Majority Whip and Leader of the Senate in the mid and late 1990s. Dick Army was elected to the House in 1984 and of course serve as House Leader in the mid and late 1990s. So the Republican Party was looking pretty good in 1985, but they were also looking good for the future. But the question was where would the Republican Party go in the future. George H.W. Bush was Vice President and the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 1988. Would they nominate him or go in another direction.

The conventional wisdom politically in Washington in the 1980s and early 90s was that there would be a Republican president. And a Democratic Congress or at least a Democratic House. That this situation worked very well in this period and that Americans preferred divided government anyway. But then Representative Newt Gingrich who was basically still a back bencher in the House put together what was called the Conservative Opportunity Society. Or something like that along with other House Republicans like, Bob Walker from Pennsylvania, Connie Mack from Florida, Trent Lott from Mississippi and others.

And the COS would work to elect enough Republicans to the House to win the majority there. Concentrate in areas like in the South, rural Midwest and West where the Democratic Party had seats there for a long time. But were moderate to conservative Democrats. And Representative Gingrich got the idea how come they could elect Conservative Republicans instead in these conservative districts. Gingrich saw these voters as naturally Republican anyway, why not bring them over to their camp instead.

It would be another ten years of course until there would be a Republican Congress the first in forty years House and Senate. But that work didn’t start in 1993-94 after the Republican Party lost the White House as well. With President Bush losing in an electoral landslide to Bill Clinton. But this work started really in late 1978 after Newt was just elected to the House. Thats when he put his group together. Representative Jack Kemp was also part of this working group. And had it not been for the recession of 1981-82, Iran Contra in 1986-87, that cost Senate Republicans the Senate and another recession in 1990-91, maybe there’s a Republican Congress pre-1995.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias- The Role of Liberals in the GOP

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias- The Role of Liberals in the GOP

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress and yes I’m familiar Maryland political history. Probably should’ve been a Democrat all along which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties. Sen. Mathias was a Liberal Republican if there is such a thing from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected. Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy.

People in today’s Republican Party the elected officials and insiders in the party who influence Republicans, but from outside office, like General Colin Powell and members of Congress like. Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Susan Collins. Senator Scott Brown and former Senator Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords and others, former Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, should consider becoming Democrats. Because of the states they represent, but also how they vote and they would probably be Liberal Democrats, but in a good sense. Not how it’s stereotyped today that looks more socialist than liberal.

But in the actual classical sense like Jack Kennedy who was a Liberal Democrat in the best sense of the word. A believer in individual freedom and limited government, not collectivism or socialism. These New Democrats would piss off Progressive Democrats or as I call them Democratic Socialists. People who get called Liberal Democrats today, but actually aren’t. They are Democratic Socialists instead. Because they would support things like individual liberty, low tax rates and be against single payer health care and other things. That Democratic Socialists have been trying to accomplish for what seems like forever now. But that’s not a bad thing because they would just be representing liberalism at it’s best. And why I’m a Liberal Democrat.

The term Liberal Republican just doesn’t work in today’s Republican Party that’s dominated by the Religious-Right. And people who like to mix in economic libertarianism with religious conservatism on the social issues. And maybe a little neoconservatism on national security. Like elements of todays Tea Party. Not saying that the whole Tea Party movement is mixed in with Religious and Neoconservatives. But there’s definitely that element of the Tea Party that is led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint and others that is. Which is one reason why Liberal Republicans should be Liberal Democrats instead.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

BGS IBMOR- President Dwight Eisenhower and Civil Rights

Source: BGS IBMOR- President Dwight D. Eisenhower & Dr. Martin L. King- 
Source: FreeState Plus

Dwight Eisenhower, was not the first President to come out in favor of civil rights or human rights for everyone in America. Abraham Lincoln deserves the credit for that for the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the African slaves. And Harry Truman allowed soldiers of different races to serve together with an executive order in I believe in 1945. What President Dwight Eisenhower deserves credit for and I believe it’s accurately reported in his presidential legacy, was enforcing rule of law in America for all the people. Rule of law as a Conservative Republican, a Classical Conservative, is something that Dwight Eisenhower believed in deeply and I believe he picked that up in the military. If Rule of law is not properly enforced, then rules and laws become meaningless.

Ike Eisenhower, saw his job as President to enforce rule of law. Something he did very well as President, with enforcing all of those U.S. Supreme Court decisions. That allowed students of different races to go to school together and sending the Army into Little Rock, Arkansas to make sure the Governor of Arkansas allowed those African-American students go to school. With the Caucasian- American students there at Central High School in Little Rock. And these types of decisions not just enforcing laws that you agree with, but enforcing all laws which is what rule of law is about, would not play well today with Neoconservatives and the Religious-Right. Which is one reason why I believe Ike Eisenhower wouldn’t be able to get the Republican nomination for president today. Because he was a Classical Conservative instead.

Dwight Eisenhower came from the Classical Conservative wing of the Republican Party. The faction that used to dominate that party. That is the real anti-big government and fiscally conservative wing of the party. That doesn’t want government trying to tell people how to live their lives, economically or civilly. Dwight Eisenhower, would probably be against the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society. But was also in favor of civil rights, human rights, Separation of Church and State, only committing our military when it’s in our national security interest. President Eisenhower pulled us out of the Korean War. I don’t believe President Eisenhower would’ve taken us to war in Vietnam. Sending in military advisors and aiding South Vietnam, would’ve been as far as he would’ve gone.

President Eisenhower, was a true budget hawk and wouldn’t have supported supply side economics. And out-of-control spending anywhere in the Federal Government, including the Pentagon. Other than civil rights its hard to tell the difference between Ike Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater politically. Eisenhower’s politics is also very similar to Ron Reagan. Both men considered champions in the conservative movement. If it’s a Conservative that the Republican Party is looking to nominate for President in 2012, than they should take a long look at Newt Gingrich or John Huntsman. Huntsman fits that label perfectly, a true anti-big government Conservative. Or find someone like Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, or Ron Reagan. If they want George Bush SR, then select Mitt Romney, but President Bush was a lot more consistent. If it’s a Religious or Neoconservative, they have plenty of candidates to choose from. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain. Otherwise they should keep looking.
BGS IBMOR: President Dwight Eisenhower and Civil Rights

Monday, November 7, 2011

Guy John: Two Friends Talk- Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Guy John: Two Friends Talk- Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley

It’s good to see Ron Reagan together with Bill Buckley. As far as I’m concern two of the fathers of the modern classical conservative movement. Who both had a role in making that movement national starting in the mid 1960s. With Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign that went a long way in putting classical conservatism on the map in American politics, because of the states that Senator Goldwater was able to reached. Winning Southern states that up until 1964, the Democratic Party had owned and Senator Goldwater was able to win a few of them. And of course Richard Nixon was able to win a lot of Southern states in 1968 as he was elected president.

And the Republican Party was able to pick up a bunch of seats in Congress. Not only in this period but were also able to build on it to the point that they won back the Senate in 1980. The first time since 1952 that Senate Republicans won or held control of the Senate and would hold their majority for two more elections. And Ron Reagan was elected President in 1980 in a landslide and reelected in a landslide in 1984. George HW Bush President Reagan’s Vice President was elected President in 1988 in another landslide.

The Republican Party wins control of the House for the first time since 1952 in 1994. And win control of the Senate for the first time since 1984 in 1993. And a lot of this success came in the South. And Ron Reagan and Bill Buckley, as well as Barry Goldwater and other Classical Conservatives had a lot to do with their Republican Party’s success. By building the classical conservative movement and using the Republican Party as it’s vehicle.

They were talking about what’s been dubbed ‘Reaganomics’ which is supply side economics. Deep across the board tax cuts, deep cuts in regulations, but you don’t cut government spending. No matter how supply siders say otherwise, that’s how it was done in 1981. And the years after the 1981 Economic Recovery Act and they of course had President Reagan and a Republican Senate. But what did they do ten times after the ERA was passed in 1981, along with a Democratic House, raise taxes and increase the Federal budget in defense and in several other areas. Part of President Reagan’s ‘peace through strength’ foreign policy.

But the country paid a heavy price in debt and deficit.s Because those promised budget cuts that President Reagan promised in 1981, never came. But what came instead was a hell of a lot of spending. Dwarfing anything that President Carter or President Clinton could come up both Democratic president’s. Richard Darman one of the President Reagan’s budget directors, also a Conservative Republican, said that President Reagan didn’t like debt and deficits. What Howard Dean dubbed, ‘borrow and spend Economics’. But if it was a choice between a balanced budget or peace through strength, he would live with the debt and deficit.

Ron Reagan did a lot to build the modern classical conservative movement, as well as the Republican Party. And President Reagan does deserve credit for turning the economy around in the 1980s. And the Economic Recovery Act did play a role in that, as well as the defense spending especially with defense contractors and military jobs. But it didn’t pay for itself. The economic recovery did not pay for the Tax Cuts. And President Reagan and his allies have said well they had a Democratic House and later a complete Democratic Congress to deal with. Well that’s true but they had President Reagan and a Republican Senate for six years and he signed those bills into law.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- Freedom vs. Fairness

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show: Milton Friedman- Freedom vs. Fairness

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness. When he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. And that gets to things like quality education and rule of law and what’s been called quality of opportunity. Not quality of result, but quality of opportunity is where everyone, or most people, no economic system is perfect, they all have their strengths and weakness’s, but where all the people have the power to make the best out of their lives. And have a quality of life based on what they put into their lives, what they produce for society.

Thats what you get in a liberal democracy which is individual liberty. Quality of result, is where we all put our money into one pot essentially and government passes some of that money, perhaps not much of it back to the people based on what they feel they need to support themselves. Which is what your would get in a socialist society, or a social democracy. With freedom, people can live their own lives and make the best out of them based on what they do with them. And you give them a quality education, then they’ll have a good opportunity to make a good life for themselves. And the fairness comes from making sure that everyone has an opportunity at a quality education. And with rule of law and that everyone is treated fairly under law.

Fairness, is not about some people doing great in society and then taking some, or a lot of their money, to give to the less-fortunate in life who aren’t self-sufficient and don’t have a great life. And perhaps have to collect public assistance for them just to survive. Fairness, would be empowering the less-fortunate so they can become self-sufficient. Empower them to go back to school, or go to school so they can get the skills and job training that they need. To get a good job, make a good living and become self-sufficient in life and not need public assistance in order to survive. Fairness, is not about taking money from people who went to school and made themselves productive in life and giving to people who can’t support themselves and collect public assistance.

But reforming our public assistance system that does this, that just doesn’t give people Welfare checks for an indefinite period of time and expects nothing from them, but uses those resources to empower people so they can support themselves. And again that gets to education. If you get a good education, your chances of doing well in life are so much better than people who don’t. Milton Friedman once said that if it’s a choice between freedom or fairness, he would choose freedom. Because without freedom there is no fairness, because then everyone would be the same. And not have the freedom to make the best life for themselves that they can. Because we would all be dependent on government.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Percy in 1967- A Foreign Policy For The GOP

U.S. Senator Charles Percy-
This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Percy in 1967- A Foreign Policy For The GOP

This idea that a stronger America makes our foreign policy stronger, because it allows our opponents less ammunition to call us hypocritical, because they can't say when we criticize them, that they shouldn't criticize us because they have similar problems, like in poverty and human rights, is a powerful argument. And something I have a lot of respect for and could be used not just as a foreign policy, but an economic policy as well. Because it relates to how we deal with other countries, but also how we govern our own country as well. For a country to have a foreign policy that has the most influence possible.

You have to first be strong at home. Because for one your country would be better off. Because your economy will be stronger, more people will be working and making more money. Your infrastructure will be stronger, which will give you more credibility when you decide you should try to influence other countries in how they govern themselves. Or how they try to influence other countries as well. And you'll also have the resources to help those other countries. Because again you'll have the resources to help them and people like Communists, socialists, theocrats, whoever are against what you're trying to do. Will again have less ammunition in how they critique you. Because they'll have less credibility in how they critique you.

America proved in the Cold War with Russia that we were stronger in that war, when our economy was stronger. And we were improving our own situation as it related to human rights. Especially as it related to civil rights like in the 1960s. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Law of 1968. We were better in fighting the Cold War with Russia in the 1950s, 60s and 80s, because our economy was strong for the most part in those entire decades. And had the resources that we needed to combat Russia because of our strong economy.

Especially going up against Russia that had a communist system when they were the Soviet Union. And had very little freedom, economic or otherwise. And despite their vast natural resources that Russia has always had, they had a weak economy for the most part during this whole time. Especially compared with the European Union, United Kingdom and United States. And simply didn't have the resources to keep up with America and the West during this whole period. The best way to have the most influence in the world as possible, is to be strong yourself. And then you can say, "you should try this because we've proven it works." Ronald Reagan called this foreign policy Peace through Strength, but he was referring to the military. But Peace through Strength can also relate to economic policy as well. Which is what Senator Chuck Percy was referring to in this video.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley, Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment in 1973

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley, Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment in 1973

I believe all good Americans across the political spectrum believe in equal rights for all people. That there’s now a consensus that’s still growing as we get younger and more liberal as a country that we shouldn’t be allowed especially the public sector, to be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, color, creed, nationality, religion and now even sexuality. That in a liberal democracy like America, free people meaning free people not a particular type of people, have the constitutional right to live freely and not be harassed by government.

No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights. And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like US Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone. The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.

People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered. The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Implications of Watergate

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Firing Line: William F. Buckley- The Implications of Watergate

The Watergate scandal from the summer of 1972 to the summer of 1974, was a horrible political scandal. That not only lasted two years, brought down a presidency, a president that was reelected by a landslide. Distracted the country from many other problems that we were facing. With a weakening economy, rising unemployment, rising health care costs, more people being without health insurance, an energy shortage, trying to get out of Vietnam, etc. It happened at about the worst time that any political scandal could hit us, where we had other issues that needed to be addressed.

And perhaps the worst part of the Watergate scandal, is that it never had to happen or become a scandal. It was completely unnecessary. President Nixon would’ve been reelected by a landslide in 1972 anyway. Had he announced what he knew about Watergate as he knew it. And had come clean his administration probably would’ve got some heat from it at least in the short-term. With Congressional investigations, but President Nixon would’ve done himself and the country a lot of good in the long-term. Because he would’ve been able to put Watergate behind us, because he would’ve been able to end his part of the scandal early on. Because the country would’ve known that he wasn’t guilty of anything. And he would’ve been able to move on with his presidency and attempt to address some of these issues.

Without the Watergate scandal as far as President Nixon covering it up, he would’ve gone down as a very successful President. Perhaps one of the best president’s America has ever had, with all of his foreign policy success’s. And this would’ve given him an opportunity. to address some other issues. As they relate to economic policy and getting the economy going again. Creating a national energy policy, which President Nixon actually did make an attempt at, as well as health care and Welfare reform. And perhaps campaign for more Republican Congressional candidates. Instead of the Republican Party dropping back to where they were in the 1960s as far as seats in Congress. In the House and Senate with Democrats having large majority’s in both chambers. As a result of the 1974 mid-term elections.

But because of the Watergate coverup, that’s the main if not only political issue that not only the Federal Government was dealing with, but what the country was paying attention to. Including even watching the Watergate hearings on TV. As a result of the Watergate scandal and coverup, the Republican Party got hammered in the 1974 mid-term elections. Democrats picked up something like thirty seats in the House and six in the Senate to add to their majority’s. And of course Democrats won the White House in 1976 while retaining their large majority’s in Congress. But thanks to President Carter, Republicans got a lot of those seats back plus some new ones in 1978 and 1980.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Wilbur Cohen and The Great Society in 1967

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Wilbur Cohen and The Great Society in 1967

One of the things if not the main thing that united the Republican Party in the mid and late 1960s, was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda and all the social insurance programs that came with it. Similar to President Clinton in 1993-94 with his deficit reduction plan, crime bill and failed health care reform attempt. Conservatives in America saw the growth of the Federal Government in the 1960s as a threat to individual freedom. Which is why they united behind Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and conservative candidates for Congress in 1966 and 68. And why they united behind Richard Nixon for President in 1968.

The GOP saw the Johnson Administration wanting to make America like Europe with a large welfare state. With things like Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Public Housing, increasing public education funding from the Federal Government, etc. And conservatives in America like Bill Buckley and others saw all of these programs as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. And didn’t like the new tax hikes that came from Medicare, especially since America was a fairly low tax country. Pre-FDR New Deal, LBJ Great Society and still a low tax country today compared with Europe. But Classical Conservatives and Libertarians, still believe that America is still overtaxed as a country.

American Conservatives wanted to get behind candidates and politicians who would work to downsize or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society. And they saw the Johnson Administration and Secretary Wilbur Cohen of the Department of Health, Welfare and Education, as people who wanted to make America more like Europe from the Federal Government. At the expense of individual freedom and state and local governments and try to centralize the power with the Federal Government.

This is how Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and other Conservatives got into to power. And how Dick Nixon got back into power in 1968 and how more Conservative Republicans got elected to Congress in the late 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And how the Republican Party became relevant again in the Federal Government and across America. By running against the New Deal and Great Society and saying that they want to change it and still try to solve the same problems. But do it in a way that gives the people more individual freedom in how they solve their own problems.

In some ways the Goldwater defeat in 1964 and the LBJ Great Society was great for the Republican Party. Because it brought them together and united them behind the same agenda. And why you saw more conservatives run for Congress and get elected especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Like Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Al Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and may others. Because the Republican Party came together behind the same agenda. And how the Rockefeller faction of the party almost faded away.

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?

By the time the 1964 presidential campaign came around, the Republican Party was already in bad shape. They lost the presidency in 1960, Democrats controlled Congress with huge majorities. And even added to those majorities in 1962 and the classical conservative base of the Republican Party, felt the needed to fight back and take control of the party as they did in 1964. After what they saw as moderate leadership from the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. And they saw Vice President Richard Nixon as a moderate presidential candidate.

This is how Senator Barry Goldwater became the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and one reason why Dick Nixon didn't run for president in 1964 and why Governor Nelson Rockefeller was treated so badly at the 1964 Republican Convention. Because a new political faction was in charge of the GOP. That believed the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was moving the Federal Government too far away from federalism. And growing the Federal Government too rapidly with the Great Society and they felt the need to step up and nominate someone who they saw as a Classical Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Who would bring the Federal Government back in line with the U.S. Constitution.

This is how exactly Senator Goldwater ran his presidential campaign and even had some success in the South. And won some Southern states that the Democratic Party use to own. 1964 was the start of a movement in American politics, that started to move the South from being a purely Democratic region and made it more competitive for Republican candidates. Which is one reason how Dick Nixon was elected President in 1968. And got reelected in a landslide in 1972 and how the Republican Party won 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88. Four of those elections that they won were by landslides.

The Republican Party paid a heavy price for Senator Goldwater's landslide lost in 1964, but for only two years. From 1965-67 where the Democratic Party had the presidency and huge majority's in Congress, but it was a short two years, because by 1966, President Johnson was starting to become unpopular. And Congressional Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Republicans were still in the minority in both chambers of Congress, but back in the ballpark, with a shot at making Congress competitive.

Because in 1968 Republicans picked up five more seats in the House to give them 192 and seven in the Senate to give them 43. So the democrats no longer had such huge majorities in Congress and be able to over run the Minority Party. Because the Republican Party now had new states and districts that were put in play for them. In some ways the 1964 general elections was a great defeat for the Republican Party.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1968: Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer?

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1968: Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer?

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress. With 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

House Republicans, a very small minority party. Only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford. Who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States. Who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this, but Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor. The Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

Having been thrown out of power in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections. So the Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

Which is one of the reasons why Representative Gerald Ford beat then House Minority Leader Charlie Halak. Because House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful. Because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South.

Monday, October 3, 2011

The John Birch Society: "Robert Welch's Amazingly Accurate 1958 Predictions": The Forerunner For The Tea Party?

Source: JBS- Robert Welch-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus

The classical conservative movement didn’t start in 2009 with the Tea Party movement. Certainly not in 2000 with George W Bush, who had a neoconservative presidency, or in 1994 with the Gingrich Revolution. Or in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution or in 1964 with the Goldwater Campaign. The current thinking of classical conservatism goes back to the early 1900s or longer. That was about protecting individual freedom and constitutional rights and fiscal responsibility and having a foreign policy that’s based only on protecting our own national security. Thats centered a lot around the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which Classical Conservatives and Libertarians. Believe limits what the Federal Government can do and this movement really started to grow in the 1930s and 40s.

Thanks President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and then they saw the growth of the United Nations and other international organizations post-World War II and of course they didn’t like that. And then with President Johnson’s Great Society agenda in the 1960s, with the rise of Senator Barry Goldwater and his 1964 rise to the Republican Party nomination for president. And then with Congressional Republicans picking up a bunch seats in the 1966 mid-term elections. With help from Dick Nixon and of course with Dick Nixon’s Silent Majority presidential campaign in 1968. When Dick Nixon became President in 1969, Classical Conservatives, the JBS and others, weren’t very happy with President Nixon and his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agency’s.

The conservative movement of course is much broader than this. And there Neoconservatives as well as Religious Conservatives in it. And Classical Conservatives seem moderate to Religious and Neoconservatives, with both Political Factions. Having at least some influence on the Tea Party movement, especially Religious Conservatives, much less so with Neoconservatives. What really drives Classical Conservatives, is the limited government Movement. Restricting what the Federal Government as well as state and local government’s. In what they can do and to try to cut back the size and budgets of the Federal Governments And get behind political candidates and public officials who’ll support this agenda.

Which is also what Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party movement are about as well. The John Birch Society and other Classical Conservatives have influenced the Tea Party movement in a positive way. Trying to move the Republican Party past-George W Bush’s neoconservatism. And try to get the Republican Party past this and back to being about limited government. And if they don’t believe the Republican Party is about limited government, then they’ll find a party or create their own. That will do this for them.
The John Birch Society: Robert Welch's Amazingly Accurate 1958 Predictions

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Margaret Thatcher: There is No Such Thing as Public Money

The Iron Lady
Margaret Thatcher: There is No Such Thing as Public Money

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says, “there’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money”, she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue. In one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes. Like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes and other taxes.

And many more unfortunately from my perspective and government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible if that’s possible, it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen: The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in 1967

Mr. Republican & CP Harding
CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen: The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in 1967

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen 1959-69, explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is. Or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video. When he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values. At least in a political sense and of course its different in a religious context and of course there's neoconservatism. Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn't be funding.

And when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism. Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn't become law. Because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation. Minority Leader Dirksen, didn't believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s. Because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield 1961-77 and President Lyndon Johnson 1963-69. They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress. That would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neoconservative, or Religious Conservative Republicans today like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s. Because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration. Conservatism, on foreign policy is about yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can't defend themselves against large aggressors. But only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today. Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in a lot of ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s. But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative Party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn't able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they've been a pretty powerful party ever since.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Aryuo Padafand: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace- 1976 Interview of The Shah of Iran

Source: Aruyo Padafand- The Shah of Iran-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs. With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people. Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy. But they left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go. The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer to. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.
Aruyo Padafand: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace- 1976 Interview of The Shah of Iran

Sunday, September 4, 2011

The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: A History of Iran From 1979-1989

Source: The Film Archives-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus

Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state, (dictator really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. He wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shaw was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one. With an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. They’ve taken in Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East, backwards. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development. He could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.
The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: A History of Iran- From The 1979 Islamic Revolution