Ron Paul For Dummies: 'Ron Paul Against Current Racial Discrimination in Judicial System- The Anti-Racist Candidate'

Source:Ron Paul For Dummies- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to CNN about his past writings.

"In a series of clips from past debates and news interviews, Ron Paul explains why he is the only "anti-racist" candidate that is willing to expose the current racial discrimination in our judicial system.  He also explains how the both the "War on Drugs" and unconstitutional "wars" overseas (Iraq) unfairly affects minorities and, that as President, Paul would end all of these wars and bring much needed justice to minorities.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law."

From Ron Paul For Dummies

Ron Paul makes a good case as a Libertarian, that if you really are a Libertarian and don't just call yourself that to defend either economic or civil liberties, that you can't be both a racist and a Libertarian, it has to be one or the other. Because if you're a Libertarian, you believe in individual liberty because you believe in individualism. But if you're a racist no matter which race you're a member of, you judge people as groups generally in a negative way. 

I definitely believe Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a racist, but he's made some statements in the past about Israel and other Jews that could be viewed as racist and has been associated with people that have made racist statements about African-Americans that could be viewed as racist. 

However Representative Paul has been associated with these Far-Right groups (loosely or otherwise) that he's going to have to explain in a satisfactory way for him to have any chance of being elected President of the United States. Or even win the Republican nomination.

Liberty Pen: Tom Woods- 'Restoring American Federalism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Anarcho-Libertarian radio talk show host Tom Woods.

"Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E Woods Jr and Kevin R Gutzman discuss the deteriorating state of American federalism and how the states could use nullification to trim federal powers back toward their Constitutional design.  Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

If you look at what limited government and what federalism is, it's about limiting what government can do. Which is how we protect our constitutional and individual rights.

So government couldn't break in our house with out a search warrant or for no reason. Couldn't take our property away from us, force us to live somewhere, in an attempt to limit how big government can be how much authority it has. 

A lot of people (perhaps especially on the Far-Left) when they terms like federalism and federalists, they think of people who believe in a big national government, that doesn't trust states and localities to govern  for the people and for individuals to make their own decisions. But it's Unitarians who can be socialist, as well as nationalist, or come from other big government, authoritarian political factions, who believe in the superstate concept when it comes to government. A huge national government that handles most, if not all of the governing in the country. 

Federalists believe in a national government, but that it should be a Federal Government, where government is decentralized and bottom-up, not top-down. Where the national government is there to handle national affairs like foreign policy, national security, interstate commerce and law enforcement, but where the states and localities handle their own domestic affairs, just as long as they're within the Constitution. 

The Cato Institute: U.S. Senator Rand Paul- 'Speaks at Cato University 2011'

Source:The Cato Institute- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking at the Libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

"U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at this year's Cato University on everything from national healthcare and the commerce clause to spending cuts and social security reform.

Cato University is the Cato Institute's premier educational event of the year. Participants are immersed in economic, philosophical, and historical principles -- and into the foundations of libertarianism and individual liberty.

Video produced by Evan Banks and Austin Bragg." 

From The Cato Institute 

Senator Rand Paul talking about big government and high taxes and making a good case against high taxation and big government and arguing that when you tax people at high rates, simply because they have money, to take care of people who don't, that you disincentivize people to work hard and be productive, because now they'll know that they can give off of big government (thanks to taxpayers) and people who earn good livings for themselves. 

Bob Stevens: Sean Hannity- Ron Paul Post Debate Interview 12/15/2011

Source:Bob Stevens- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity.

"Ron Paul Hannity Post Fox News Debate Interview. Another poor attempt by Fox News to smear Ron with ancient accusations."  

From Bob Stevens

Source:Fox News- host Sean Hannity interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"The Great Neo-Con-Libertarianism isn't Conservative." Originally from the so-called Southern Avenger Jack Hunter, but his video was blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Actually, I agree with Neoconservatives that say libertarianism isn't conservative and it's certainly not part of the modern conservative movement. Libertarianism is clearly not neoconservative and part of that movement which a lot of so-called modern Conservatives are today. Who tend to be somewhat statist except for when it comes to the welfare state, and corporate welfare, to me any way. 

So here to someone like a Sean Hannity, who I guess since Barack Obama would now be called a right-wing populist, go after Libertarian Ron Paul for not being neoconservative enough and being too fiscally conservative, is interesting to me as someone who is not a Republican. I thought Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative and oppose endless wars. 

Sidewinder 77: Milton Friedman- 'On Self-Interest and Profit Motive'

Source:Sidewinder 77- Chicago University Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in 1978.

"This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" 

From Sidewinder 77

The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, it's assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. 

The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism, that government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc, and you can go down the line, that it becomes expensive, intrusive, and inefficient.  

But if you empower the people to not just make their own decisions, but the right decisions, educated people tend to become free people, which frees up a lot of resources for government to do what we actually need it to do as a free society, like protect and defend. Not try to un our lives for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Michael Parenti: 'Wealth Creates Poverty'

Source:Make It Emphatic- Michael Parenti talking about wealth and poverty.

"From a Michael Parenti Talk. Affluence Creates Poverty - Marshall McLuhan" 

From Make It Emphatic 

So in other words; for someone to have wealth and achieve some form of economic independence in society, someone else has to be poor. It's the old zero-sum game theory: for me to do well, you have to do poorly, because apparently the pot (or wealth) is not big enough for everyone to succeed. 

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants. If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus, cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others as much as it increases the amount available for that taker, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally.

In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses can be less than or more than zero. A zero-sum game is also called a strictly competitive game while non-zero-sum games can be either competitive or non-competitive. Zero-sum games are most often solved with the minimax theorem which is closely related to linear programming duality,[1] or with Nash equilibrium." 

From Wikipedia

Michael Parenti's zero-sum game theory, is traditional socialist thinking, that if you allow for people to do well, that's exactly what they will do, while others won't do as well. Which is called the marketplace. And then they blame the economically successful and advantaged, for having people in society that haven't done well. And completely throw personal responsibility out the window. 

Reason Magazine: 'Ending the Global Drug War: Voices from the Front Lines'

Source:Reason Magazine- covering the War on Drugs.

"Ever since the War on Drugs, everything has hit the fan," says Romesh Bhattacharji, former Narcotics Commissioner of India. Rather than continue the unnecessary and costly drug war, Bhattacharji advises the United States to simply "Relax, take it easy, [and] tolerate."

Last month, at the Cato Institute's "Ending the Global War on Drugs" conference, Bhattacharji's sentiments were echoed by ex-drug czars, cops, politicians, intellectuals, liberal and conservative journalists, and even the former President of Brazil. Reason.tv attended the event and spoke with a number of the featured speakers, including... 

From Reason Magazine

When people on the front line of the War on Drugs (the so-called drug Warriors) say that the War on Drugs is failing or failed, we should listen to these people because they are fighting the War on Drugs for us. They are our  so-called drug warriors who fight this failed war for us that was declared by President Nixon forty years ago. 

All we've gotten out of this so-called war is 1T$ spent and turning drug addicts into criminals and throwing people in prison for what they do to themselves. Even if they haven't hurt anyone else with what they are doing. Thats exactly what Big Government is about whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far- Right in the War on Drugs.

Big Government is about power, the Power of Government to be able to control how its own people live their lives. Some people especially on the Right who tend to be economic Libertarians, but not Libertarian on social issues, say Big Government is about money and it takes a lot of people's money away from them, for the government to control in order to control society and make people dependent on Big Government. But money is just the tool, a big tool but a tool to finance the power of Big Government. The War on Drugs case in point: it's all about power the power for Big Government to control how individuals live their own lives. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Susan Herman: 'Assassinations, Spying and The Constitution'

Source:Reason Magazine- ACLU President Susan Herman's book.

"All of our elected representatives have to hear from a broad cross section of liberals, libertarians, conservatives--people who just say, 'This is too much big government. We want our government back,'" says American Civil Liberties Union President Susan Herman, author of the new book "Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy."

How much has the police state expanded since 9/11, and is there any way to stop it? Herman sat down with Reason.tv Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie to discuss the this and other questions surrounding the state of liberty in America. Herman notes that while there have been a few minor changes in policy, for the most part there's been a remarkable continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations in terms of their disregard for civil liberties. She makes the case that liberals must make alliances with libertarians and pro-liberty conservatives like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson if there's any hope of curbing the ever-expanding police state. 

She also discusses the recent assassination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki and the ACLU's role in representing Al-Awlaki's father in court." 

From Reason Magazine

The U.S Constitution is about individual liberty and preserving that and thats all. Everything in it is designed to protect our individual liberty. I mean it was written Liberals and Conservatives people who didn't like the United Kingdom and its authoritarian rule. And wanted the people to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government and not be overtaxed. Another reason why the American rebels wanted t separate from the United Kingdom and form the United States. 

I believe the second best part of our U.S. Constitution after all the individual liberty and constitutional rights it guarantees, is how hard it is to amend it and take liberty away from the people. 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and then 2/3 vote in thirty four states and in their legislatures. 

Europe (to use as an example) they can amend their Constitution through (and this a technical term) by statue, meaning by law. Parliament passes a bill to amend the Constitution and then I believe the executive has to approve it and then passed passed again by Parliament. 

America is just not a comfortable political environment for Neoconservatives, Theocrats or Socialists. Because a lot of what they want to do, would be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Because it would be viewed as unconstitutional. Thats what you get when you have Liberals and Conservatives write a Constitution. 

So a lot of what these big government political factions that are sort of out but looking in at American power want to do is currently unconstitutional and for them to pass their agenda , they have to amend the Constitution with several amendments.

Justice Antonin Scalia who's not my favorite Justice on the Supreme Court, he's a Conservative and I'm a Liberal, but we do have some things in common and I have a lot of respect for Justice Scalia. Justice Stephen Breyer a Liberal is may favorite Supreme Court Justice, but when Justice Scalia says that the Constitution has been under attack, he's right in this sense, the last ten years the Federal Government has passed the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention of terrorists suspects with not trials, torture, the Constitution has been under attack by Neoconservatives like in the Bush Administration as well as in Congress. 

Theocrats and Socialists haven't been innocent here either. They just haven't had the power to get their policies enacted in law. Theocrats wanting to bring religion closer to the State. Socialists wanting the Federal Government to have more power over the economy. And take power away from the states.

Again, if you are a fan of individual liberty both economic freedom and civil liberties, then you love the U.S. Constitution, or you should at least check it out, because its an individualist document written by Liberals and Conservatives, big believers in individual liberty. Not written for collectivists or authoritarians.

Newt Gingrich: 'Art Laffer Praises Newt's Social Security Plan: Makes Perfect Sense'

Source:Newt Gingrich- Art Laffer talking to Fox News.

"In an interview on Fox, former Reagan economic advisor Art Laffer praised Newt's Social Security plan: "I do like it very much, and I think Newt is right on line with this one." 

From Newt Gingrich

I like any Social Security or pension reform plan that expands freedom of choice in how people can plan for their own retirement. As long as there's a floor of income that people could count on that under my plan would be 125% of the Federal poverty rate (or roughly 25K$ a year right now) so if people were to blow their retirement fund through bad investments or business deals, bad economy, whatever, they would at least have the Social Security minimum that they could count on. Which today is 14-15$ a year which to me seems way too low, thats only around 60% of the current poverty level. 

Some people rely on Social Security for all of their income and then have to rely on public assistance and private charity to make up the rest, get that up to around 25K$ a year and that would help take some of the strain off our public assistance and private charity. 

CATO Institute: Ben Friedman- 'Discusses Non-Interventionism in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Common Sense Society'

Source:CATO Institute- research fellow Ben Friedman.

"Ben Friedman discusses non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy at the Common Sense Society" 

From the CATO Institute

One of the reasons why the United Kingdom and European Union as well as the Imperial Republic of Japan have such large welfare states (too put it simply) because they can afford to. But the better question is why do they have such large welfare states (compared with the United States) is because their defense budgets, are about 1/5 of ours as part of their GDPs. 

And a good question would be why is that, because not only are we responsible for the national defense of America, but I would argue North America as a whole, as well as Britain, Scandinavia, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Korea, and Japan. All developed nations that have the resources to defend themselves, but American taxpayers spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to defend them. 

Government Gone Wild: 'Land of The Freebies, Home of The Brave'

Source:Government Gone Wild- who is this guy?

"Watch this SHOCK video about our government's "cradle to the grave" entitlement society! Become a "fan" on Facebook here:Facebook follow us on Twitter here:Twitter." 

From Government Gone Wild  

I don't love it, but find it hilarious when Socialists (people who call themselves Progressives) talk about all sorts of free programs and free government money, as if they're playing Monopoly or some video game or they have a personal printing press that prints counterfeit cash and they just give it away as if they're more generous than Santa Claus himself. I mean, do you they know anything about American government and economics? Did they take those classes in high school or at their fancy Northeast or West Coast colleges? Were those classes even available where they went to school?  

Without taxes, government would literally have to print and borrow every penny that they spend. Or have tariffs rates so high that no other country would want to invest here. Who pays the taxes? The people who receive those government services. And some might say that low-income people don't pay for their government programs as well. That's wrong as well: they pay for their programs by having to live in poverty every single day that they're eligible for those programs. 

If you want to give people government programs (with other people's money) have the decency and character to tell the people who are going to have to pay for them (the taxpayers) how much it's going to cost them. If you're tired of people hating politicians and politics, stop bullshitting them, regardless of your political party and philosophy. And then maybe some day they'll have more respect for you than the assholes who send them spam calls and emails. 

New American: 'Term Limits - A Threat to our Constitution'

Source:New American- The U.S. House of Representatives; the lower chamber of the U.S. Congress. Regardless of what the guy in this video says.

"This 1997 fact-filled presentation dispels any notion that good government can result from a game of musical chairs in government via term limits." 

From the New American

The main reason why I don't like term limits in Congress (even if they are generous) is because I don't like the idea of government limiting who we can vote for, as long as we meet basic qualifications: we are alive, free, American citizens, and meet the basic age requirement to run for office. 

The reason why term limits makes sense for executives, president's (I would add vice president's) governors , county executives, and mayors, is because there's a lot of power given to executives, individual power and you don't want them in Public Office indefinitely making decisions based on how to get reelected. But if you term limit executives, that gives them the political freedom, until their term is over, to make decisions that may not be popular, but may be the right thing to do. And of course they can make unpopular decisions that are the wrong thing to do, like pardoning murderers that are clearly guilty and that sort of thing. 

Nutsare Fancy: 'Newt Gingrich Exposed- Ron Paul The Constitutionalist'

Source:Nutscare Fancy- some guy talking about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Sorry, but that's all I have, the video was deleted or blocked on YouTube.

"Newt Gingrich exposed. Ron Paul the constitutionalist." Originally from Nutscare Fancy, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

This little somewhat childish debate that's going on in the Republican primaries about who is the constitutionalist: Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. Is kinda pointless, because I believe they are both constitutionalists. At least to a certain extent, but I would give the edge to Representative Paul, because he's a constitutionalist the whole way. 

And Speaker Gingrich leans more to being a Neoconservative on the War on Terror as far as how America should deal with its terror suspects. But other than that Newt is the closest thing to Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan as far as the major GOP presidential candidates right now. Except for being a bit farther right than Goldwater/Reagan on social issues. Like with school prayer and calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in America. A couple of reasons why the Religious-Right loves Newt and why Representative Paul is more of a constitutionalist than Newt.

Senator Rand Paul: 'Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment'

Source:Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment" 

From Senator Rand Paul

My favorite parts about the Republican presidential debate about national security last week and I admit I'm not a Republican (I would be an insult to the current Republican Party) so my favorite moments in last weeks debate are obviously limited but my 2nd favorite moment from that debate, was when a Neoconservative from the Heritage Foundation asked Newt Gingrich: "As we are going through deficit reduction right now, with how important our national security is, should the defense budget be off the table in deficit reduction?" And Speaker Gingrich simply put said, no. 

Speaker Gingrich in the debate explained why his answer was no and that no part of the Federal budget should be off the table in deficit reduction. Where ever there's waste in the Federal Government, we should eliminate it, including in the Defense Department. Newt Gingrich simply making the case for fiscal conservatism and responsibility. Which is something that apparently only Neoconservatives don't understand. 

But my favorite part of that debate was when Representative Ron Paul (the father of Senator Rand Paul) was asked about enhance techniques used against terrorist suspects. And I'm paraphrasing here but Representative Paul answered that once we surrender our individual liberty, the terrorists have won, because thats exactly what they want us to do. 

There's no such thing as national security without individual liberty. You can't have one without the other. Goes without saying that you can't have individual liberty without national security. Once you surrender or lose one, you've lost both because without individual liberty, we become prisoners of the state for them to be able to do to us as they please, because we don't have the individual liberty to stop them from doing to us as they please. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Government's Gambling Hypocrisy'

Source:Liberty Pen- If Big Government doesn't like gambling, then they should probably outlaw the state lottery, as well as elections, for that matter.

"Government nannies consider gambling a vice.  That is, unless they are the ones profiting from the game. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Prohibition of gambling to me is a perfect example of what big government is. Because what is big government and what is it about) I believe  theChristian-Right see big government as about money and the welfare state. And high tax rates are about funding big government, but that regulating how people live their own lives. Like how they can spend their own money and what they can watch and read, to use as examples. The New-Right sees big government as being about national security because government is used there to protect people from themselves and the state. But thats not what  big government is about.

Big government is about power. Money is just the instrument to fund power, the power to control how free people live their own lives. What free adults do with their own lives with their own time and money. And prohibition of gambling is the poster child of big government, controlling what free adults do with their own time and money. There are a couple of problems with this.

For one, the big government problem but also the double standard of it, because a lot of states already have legalize gambling, it's just not private gambling, but public gambling. In the form of state lottery's. A lot of States don't mind gambling if they can receive a profit from it. Putting money in the stock market is also a form of gambling but thats legal anywhere in America. There of course is also some skill involved there but its also a form of gambling.

Again, I've made this point over and over but to pat myself on the back and to make it again because it's so true. If people want to do something bad enough, they find a way to do it. Without regards to the consequences and they might not even be addicted to whatever they want to do with their own time and money. They may just really enjoy what they are doing. Feel it's worth the risk or they won't get caught. Gambling is a perfect example of that. Instead of breaking into private homes to break up poker games in someone's living rooms or basements, why don't they break up murder for hire rings, or get rapists or con artists off the street. Better for society because we would be safer and better for the economy to have less con artists and thieves on the street.

Just because you prohibit gambling in one state, doesn't end it. It just means it's done differently and behind closed doors in back rooms tax free. Any fan of big government should hate the idea of people profiting tax free, or its done in other states. People can't gamble in New York, so they drive down to New Jersey to gamble there. Money leaves the Empire State and heads down to the Garden State where New Jersey collects taxes off of it. To help pay for their roads, schools, public safety, etc.

Instead of trying to protect people from themselves and contracting our economic and tax base by outlawing other activities, lets instead decriminalize things like gambling and other activities. If you read my blog you know what those other activities are and regulate how people interact with each other instead. Expand our economic and tax base and have more revenue to actually put away dangerous criminals instead.

Liberty Pen: Andrew Napolitano- 'Who is Better Off Now?'

Source:Liberty Pen- Judge Andrew Napolitano.

"Judge Napolitano looks at the state of the union to determine who is better off now than four years ago. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

If the economy is the same today or worse by the time American voters get around to deciding who to vote for President in 2012 and the presidential election is about the economy and President Obama, then the President is going to lose. Only way he gets elected under those conditions is if the Republican Party nominates Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain, someone who won't be able to appeal to Independent voters because they look dangerous. Independent Voters will decide who will win the presidential election because all of the talk from the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party about running a primary challenger.  

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Christian Theocracy: GOP Dream?'

Source:The Aloyna Show- talking about Christian Theocracy.

"This weekend six of the GOP Presidential candidates participated in a so-called "Thanksgiving Family Forum" in Iowa sponsored by The Family Leader and National Organization for Marriage. Two conservative Christian organizations and the focus was on social policy and values. David Silverman, president of American Atheists discusses."

From The Aloyna Show

As much as Conservative Americans would dispute this there are actually multiple functions of Big Government. There is the social democratic version of "big government" thats common in Europe that you see in Britain or Sweden that Democratic Socialists would like to see in America with a large welfare state (by American standards) where the Federal Government plays a big role in providing goods and services for society. But where there's a vibrant private sector but with high taxes by American standards to finance the welfare state thats also highly regulated again by American standards.

But there's also another version of big government thats not as well publicized that the media and Lberals and Libertarians haven't done a very good job publicizing its a authoritarian right-wing version of big government that you see in the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the Saudi Kingdom where there's limited social freedom where people don't have constitutional right to live their own lives. Where people can be arrested for doing something thats considered morally offensive even if they are not hurting anyone else with their action or actions. Like reading a porn magazine would be illegal in a society like this that Christian Conservatives would like to see in America.

I'm not saying that all Christian Conservatives are bad people because that certainly not true even though I disagree with their politics and their religious views. But what I'm saying is as much as the Far Right and a lot of Christian Conservatives are part of the Far Right in America. Like the Christian Coalition or the Family Research Council just to use as examples. As well as the Christian-Right having leaders in Congress like Republican Senator Jim DiMint from South Carolina to use as an example. But as much as the Far-Right rails against big government they are being dishonest in a sense because they believe in big government but a different version of it.

And as much as they praise the U.S .Constitution a paper as a Liberal that I love they only believe in parts of the Constitution the parts of it that fits into their political ideology. Like the First Amendment because it protects political speech but what they don't like about the First Amendment is that protects different versions of speech that it doesn't say Americans have the right to free political speech but the Right to Speech and that the Federal courts as well as lower courts have ruled and I believe correctly that the First Amendment protections is much broader then political speech. The Christian Right also loves the First Amendment because it protects Americans rights to Freedom of Religion. But what they don't like about the First Amendment is the Separation of Church and State.

So when you hear someone rail against big government see if you can find out of version of big government" they are railing against and if they are only railing against only one version of big government see if you can find out their positions on another version of  Big Government. Because you might be able to find them being hypocritical.

Matthew Neil: 'Welfare-Ezra Taft Benson (1968)'

Source:Matthew Neil- I'm guessing a cartoon about Ezra T. Benson.

"The is a compilation of parts of a speech that Ezra Taft Benson gave in 1968.  The video is from the John Birch Society.  I put it together for a class assignment to review the 2010 reform of Healthcare in America." 

From Matthew Neil

If you want to talk about the welfare state or redistribution of wealth or socialism, you should at least know what those terms mean.  

What Ezra Taft Benson was talking about when he was talking about redistribution of wealth, could be used to categorized anything that any government, in any jurisdiction, in any place in the world, does to serve its people. 

Everything from national defense, to law enforcement, to infrastructure, to the regulatory state, to public assistance, is some form of redistribution of wealth, because you're about taxing a, to serve b and vice-versa. 

So anyone who says they're not in favor of at least some form of wealth distribution, you should ask them a couple of questions: are they in favor of any kind and level of government at all and how would they fund their government. If their answer is yes to the first question, then they believe in at least some form of wealth redistribution, especially if they believe in taxation to fund their government. 

CNN Money: Tammy Luhby- 'Will FHA Be The Next Big Government Bailout?'

Source:CNN Money- the bankrupt Federal Housing Administration.

"Continued trouble in the housing market has further eroded the Federal Housing Administration's reserves, leaving it with a very thin cushion to protect it against future financial losses.

And should housing values continue to plummet, the agency may have to turn to taxpayers for a bailout, according to its annual report, which was released Tuesday.

The agency's reserves fell to 0.24% in fiscal 2011, down from 0.5% the year earlier, according to independent estimates in the report. This ratio measures the net worth of the reserve fund compared with the value of the loans FHA has insured." 

From CNN Money

The Federal Government has a history of setting up enterprises that are somewhat self-financed and independent. But really aren't because the Federal Government still has a role in its management. 

The Postal Service, the Federal Housing Administration, Amtrak, Social Security, and Medicare aren't bankrupt yet. But both are in need of reform to avoid that same thing with Medicaid down the road. And the 2010 Affordable Care Act that I by in-large support, makes Medicaid financial outlook even worse. Because it adds millions of people to Medicaid without a way to pay for it. 

Medicaid is Health Insurance for low-income people, who can't afford to pay for their health insurance, so the revenue is going to have to come from somewhere else. 

FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are what's known as government sponsored enterprises (or GSE) which is the big part of the problem right there. 

Government shouldn't be in the business of sponsoring enterprises, especially in a capitalist economy like America. Government is not a for-profit organization, but a public service designed to serve, not to make money and collects revenue to do those things, not to make money. Doesn't mean it should run debt and deficits either, but they are not in the business to make money. But to serve the people that they represent. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Infrastructure Spending'

Source:Liberty Pen- Talking about infrastructure spending. Not exactly a ratings grabber on cable news.

"Roads and bridges present a noble facade for political pork. Liberty Pen."

Source:Liberty Pen

Infrastructure investment (as I call it) used to be a bipartisan thing. The majority of the members of both party's in Congress. But today with bipartisanship becoming so unpopular in both party's with both party's wanting so much to have all of the power in the Federal Government and not some of it and with Libertarians having a bigger voice in American politics today, infrastructure investment at least from the Federal Government, no longer has much Bi Partisanship.

And the reasons for this is when infrastructure bills are passed, there's a lot of waste in them. With earmarks, with money thats supposed to go to one project and ends up in another project instead. That may have nothing to do with economic growth. And with the Tea Party and the libertarian movement wanting the Federal Government to cut everywhere and not make any new investments in the economy and with their influence on the Republican Party right now, infrastructure investment has become almost impossible to pass right now.

But the need to repair and rebuild and add to our public infrastructure are still there and if anything have gotten bigger. We have both roads and bridges crumbling right now that need to be fixed and we have the construction workers in the private sector to do this work and a lot of them are currently unemployed right now and need to work. So we need to find a way to do this and pass something out of Congress that the President would sign into law. And we need to think out of the box in order to make this happen.

In the 2009 during the stimulus debate when the American Recovery Act was passed, infrastructure investment was considered in that debate and some was passed. But the problem was in a bill of 800B$ only 45B$ of that was for infrastructure investment. And Conservatives and Libertarians have used that to say that infrastructure investment doesn't work, because we tried that in 2009 and almost three years later we have a larger unemployment rate.

So thats the justification that the Tea Party and other use to argue why we shouldn't pass infrastructure investment today. And what they don't mention is that only 5% of the ARA was infrastructure investment. 45B$ aint going to get it done to rebuild our public infrastructure, we need 10-12 times more then that and do it over 5-10 years. But we should pay for it and do it in a responsible way by paying for it and only invest in infrastructure that needs to be built or repaired. That would benefit the economy and not these bogus earmarks that are for special interest groups. Which is why this process needs to be open and clean. Which is why I'm for creating a National Infrastructure Bank that would fund our infrastructure investment through the private sector by encouraging investment into our public infrastructure. And then hiring private construction company's to do the work.

I'm not for passing massive highway bills that are loaded up with earmarks that are done in the back room that go to fund things that have nothing to do with public infrastructure. But investing in infrastructure in a clean and open process by creating a National Infrastructure Bank that would be independent of the Federal Government, self-financed, by getting the private sector to invest into our infrastructure investment. That these company's would also collect profits from and prioritize infrastructure investment. And then hire private construction company's to do the work.

Ron Paul 2008: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- 'Save Social Security by Cutting Spending'

Source:Ron Paul 2008- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking about Social Security.

"Ron Paul:  Save Social Security by cutting spending." Originally from Ron Paul 2008, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.  

If there is one area where Ron Paul has moderated over the years, it would social insurance programs and entitlements. He used to argue that they were all unconstitutional and therefor should be eliminated, even if there are Americans who are dependent on them. Then he went to they should be phased out over time. And now he's talking about block-granting them to the states, which is what Governor Gary Johnson as proposed. And now he's actually talking about saving Social Security, instead of eliminating it all together. 

It just goes to show you that anyone whose been in politics a longtime and has been a publicly elected official for a longtime (like Representative Ron Paul) that you're capable of adapting or moderating as the facts and evidence change, or when you feel it's in your best political interests. Which is perhaps what Representative Paul is doing as it relates to Social Security.

Pacific Street Films: 'Anarchism and the Libertarian Party'

Source:Pacific Street Films- so-called Anarcho-Libertarians wouldn't approve of this activity.

"How the political philosophy of anarchism relates to the Libertarian party (US). From the documentary "Anarchism in America" (1983) by Pacific Street Films." 

From Pacific Street Films

The Libertarian Party and the broader movement came about (as I understand it) as a reaction to the New Deal in the 1940s and the Great Society in the 1960s, as a reaction against what they would call big government socialism. They believed a welfare state in America was not needed, bad policy, and unconstitutional. 

The Libertarian Party and Libertarian movement is about defending the U.S. Constitution and fighting against what they would call big government socialism and authoritarianism and promoting limited government and individual liberty. And trying to prevent it from going outside the U.S. Constitution, a big believer in the entire U.S. Constitution. 

People who are called Libertarians use the 10th Amendment (as they see it) to fight against big government. And to keep the Federal Government from getting outside the 10th Amendment and big believers in individual liberty. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. 

And if Libertarians were to stick to the core principles of being pro-individual liberty and limited government, they could have a great future and recruit more members to their party. Because I believe a consensus of Americans share these same beliefs. It's when they take it farther than that and sound like anti-government, not anti-big Government, but anti-government, period, that they tend to sound like they just flown down from the Planet Zoltar (or some far out planet) and scare the hell out of taxpayers who don't like high taxes, but don't want government to go away either.

Ron Paul 2008: Terry Moran- Interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul: 'I Just Don't Want To Run Third-Party'

Source:Ron Paul 2008- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to ABC News about his presidential campaign.

"I just don't want to run third-party." Originally from Ron Paul 2008, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Unless you're a hard-core Ron Paul supporting Classical Libertarian, you're smart and sane enough to understand that Representative Ron Paul will be never be President of the United States. He probably won't even win his own State of Texas in the Republican primary, thats just a fact. A Classical Libertarian running for President in the Republican Party that's dominated by the Christian- Right that will decide whether the Republican nominee can be elected President of the United States. he

I believe Representative Paul understands these things and is actually not running for President to be elected President. But of course he would take the job if he's elected, but to help build the Libertarian movement. And let Americans know that there's a different option out there, that it's not just about Democrats and Republicans. Or socialism coming from the Far-Left, or authoritarianism coming from the Far-Right. 

Ron Paul represents enough voters out there who are truly anti-big government and want to be left alone to live their lives. And Representative Paul understands this and is going after these voters. And I believe this is the Libertarian movement that Representative Paul is trying to build. 

So after around April 2012 or so after the Republican Party has nominated who will be their nominee for President, Ron Paul needs to strongly consider, or actually not give up his presidential campaign. But go after the Libertarian Party nomination for President and they'll take him with his views on the issues.

Marijuana Community: 'Gary Johnson- on Legalizing Marijuana'

Source:Marijuana Community- Governor Gary Johnson (Republican, New Mexico) on marijuana legalization.

"Gary Johnson On Legalizing Marijuana! PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE! MARIJUANA COMMUNITY CHANNEL Subscribe For More Recent Video Updates?" 

From Marijuana Community

Source:FreeState Now- Governor Gary Johnson (Republican, New Mexico) on marijuana legalization.

Why do we have two-million people in prison in America, the largest Prison Population in the world, at least on a per-capita basis, because we lock up people and send them to prison who don't represent a threat to society. 

We lock up people for what they do to themselves. We lock up people for what they do to themselves rather than what they do to others. In other words: the War on Drugs in America is at fault for our huge prison population. We are a liberal democracy and I'm a Liberal Democrat whois  proud to live in this liberal democracy. But of course we are not a perfect liberal democracy.

Gary Johnson who describes his politics as classical liberal who is running for President in the Republican Party, but you wouldn't know that, because he's only been allowed to appear at one presidential debate, understands this because he was Governor of New Mexico which of course borders Mexico. They actually have about a thousand-mile border with Mexico and have their own drug issues as a result of Mexico.

But Johnson did as Governor of Mexico was very smart and clever and forward-thinking. He pardoned marijuana users who weren't violent offenders, who didn't have a bad record in prison. That alone brings down your prison population and allows you to use that prison space for violent offenders instead. And New Mexico has an organized gang problem and this helped them with that. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Government's Ponzi Scheme'

Source:Liberty Pen- House Republicans who I'm guessing are unimpressed with President Obama's speech. But you give it your best shot.

"A look at the Social Security system.  By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen 

A Ponzi Scheme (as I see it) is where people put a lot of money into a fund or give someone a lot of money or any money, being told they are going to get some benefit from it and then believing that. Like putting money into property or a business and seeing it go belly up. Bernie Maddof and his scandal of 2008 and before that is an excellent example of that.

Medicare and Social Security have its issues, even Socialists are now acknowledging this. But we pay into both of them and have been doing this since 1933 or 34 when Social Security was created. And 1965 with Medicare and everyone who has paid into them and is eligible to collect from them has. So where's the Ponzi Scheme? Now if we don't reform them, people in my Generation X won't be able to collect from them because the money won't be there. And then Social Security and Medicare will indeed become Ponzi Schemes, but we are not there yet.

Just ask Governor Rick Perry of Texas who of course is running for President, who despite his faults (too many to name at this particular time) I still consider him the top contender to Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination. And how the term Ponzi Scheme has helped him. 

Going into September Governor Perry looked like the natural frontrunner and then of course he uses the term Ponzi Scheme to describe Social Security and Medicare. As well as calling then unconstitutional and his presidential campaign has plummeted ever since. Sort of like ratings for a Ku Klux Klan rally in Harlem and the KKK wondering why no one attended. Because senior citizens especially and others know better than Social Security and Medicare being some sort of Ponzi Schemes. Because they paid into them and now are collecting from them.

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Liberty Pen- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1988.

"Ron Paul would starve the big government beast. Liberty Pen."

From Liberty Pen

If you look at where Ron Paul was on the issues in 1988 and where he was in 2007-08 and now 2011 going into 2012, it's hard to tell the difference between the Ron Paul of that era and the Ron Paul today. 

Representative Paul was a Classical Libertarian then and is a Classical Libertarian today. Actually, he's moderated a little bit on entitlements, instead of calling for the elimination of them, he's now calling for a phase out of them. People who paid into them and are retired would still be able to collect those benefits, but younger workers would be able to take the money that they are paying in social insurance and transfer them into personal accounts use that money to pay for personal retirement accounts. And pay for private health insurance once they are retired. 

In the 1980s, Ron Paul was preaching the message of limited government which he believes is the only way to guarantee maximize individual freedom. Letting people live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom.

Representative Paul back then was calling for bringing our troops home and closing our foreign bases that we use to defend developed nations. Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea. And overall cutting our defense budget by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Ron Paul was elected to the House in 1976 as a Republican. The same year Jimmy Carter was elected President with a huge majority in the House and Senate. And campaigned for Ron Reagan when he ran for President in 1980 or the other way around Representative Paul runs or President in 1988 with the Libertarian Party, gives up his House seat to do it, gets elected back to the House in 1996 and has been there ever since. 

Ron Paul is very unique especially for a politician because he speaks what he sees as the truth. Whether it's popular or not and continues to get rewarded for that. 

U.S. Representative Scott Garrett: Franklin Rains- 'Calls For Fannie & Freddie Mac Reform'

Source:U.S. Representative Scott Garrett- former Fannie and Freddie Mac CEO Franklin Raines, being interviewed by CNBC.

"Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae, said financial reform will not be complete without reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in an interview with CNBC this afternoon.

CNBC: "The president spoke forthrightly about the need for financial regulatory reform. But I don't believe I ever heard him mention the words Fannie Mae or Freddie. Can you really reform finance in this country without reforming Fannie and Freddie?"

Raines: "In terms of reform dealing with "Too Big to Fail" and those issues, I think that ultimately you can't have a completely reformed system without figuring out what you're going to do with these two very large companies..."

From US. Representative Scott Garrett

Perhaps Frank Raines is not the best spokesperson to be talking about financial housing assistance right now. After all, he was the President of Fannie Mae that when it went down in 2008. Which was one of the reasons for the housing crisis because of all the mortgages that FM were holding. Which help lead to the Great Recession of 2008 along with the collapse of our banking system. 

If you're going to bail people out and generally bailing people out is not a good idea especially for bad behavior, because that encourages more bad behavior and making the problem worst, but if you're going to bail people out, bail people out that are in trouble for no fault of their own. People that got screwed by big banks and now owe more money on their homes than they are worth. 

The people who were screwed by big banks are overwhelmingly middle class, at least before the Great Recession and how still have their homes. But are at risk of losing their homes, because they owe more money on the home than it's worth and they can afford to pay back, their savings and retirement funds were wiped out.

Because of the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system, these one time middle class workers are now out-of-work as a result of the Great Recession and haven't worked since. Or lost their savings during the Great Recession, or a combination of some or all of these factors. And that's what President Obama is addressing with his new financial assistance program, to help people refinance their homes and retire some of their mountain size debt, so they can keep their homes. Start spending money again and jump start economic growth which would lead to job growth. 

The fact is we can't get our economy going again, economic and job growth, unless people especially the middle class start spending money again. Retiring some consumer debt would help jump start consumer spending again. And the only way thats going to happen, is we get a lot of our consumer debt paid off. Refinancing homes giving homeowners the resources to refinance their mortgages and paying off their debt.

Which is why I support a few things in this area

Home refinancing, like some type of housing insurance system. To accomplish this that people would pay into based on how much their property is worth. That they can collect from when their home is worth more than they can afford to pay back to help meet their mortgage payments. 

As well as public assistance for people that they can pay back who have underwater mortgages in the short-term and also some type of tax credit or tax deduction. That would be temporary that people could collect to pay down their debt.

And after that an extension of the Payroll Tax Holiday for workers and apply that to employers as well. For the middle class and low-income people, so they can have some extra money to spend. And then a Consumer Tax Credit that people can collect, but they can only spend it. By a certain amount of time to help boost consumer spending.

We'll never get the economy going again which means strong economic and job growth and a falling unemployment rate, unless we start spending as consumers again. And we can't do this until we retire a lot of our consumer debt and get past the housing crisis, a big part of the Great Recession. 

I'm all for tax cuts, regulatory reform, infrastructure investment and creating a national energy policy, that leads us to energy independence. But none of those things mean much, without consumer spending. And we need to retire a lot of our consumer debt before we can get the consumer spending that we need.