Ron Paul: 'How to Sell Liberty (1990)'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking about liberty in 1990.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Dr. Ron Paul has been a three-time candidate for President of the United States; as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He served for many years as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, and is widely known for his libertarian views and his criticism of the federal government’s foreign, domestic, and monetary policies. He is the author of several books including The Case for Gold (1982), A Foreign Policy of Freedom (2007), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), and Liberty Defined (2011).

In this video Dr. Paul speaks to a crowd in San Francisco in 1990 at an International Society for Individual Liberty conference. Having run for office under the Libertarian Party’s banner two years prior, Dr. Paul shares his experience on how to sell libertarianism to make it palatable to both liberals and conservatives." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

What supposed to pass as Libertarians and libertarianism in 2012, are essentially right-wing Anarchists who call themselves voluntarists. People who don’t have a role for an organized, publicly financed government to do anything. People who are antigovernment, not anti-big government, but antigovernment all around. People who believe that everything that’s done in society should be done voluntarily with no rules for anything.

What’s supposed as a Libertarian and libertarianism today in 2012, is not what you get from Ron Paul when he was first elected to the U.S. House in 1976, ran for President of the Libertarian Party in 1988, got elected to the House again in 1996, ran for President in 2007-08, and again in 2011-12.

Ron Paul to me is the face of the American Libertarian movement. Perhaps not the father, but you are talking about someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, just as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing. Which is his role for government, which is to protect the innocent from people who hurt them. But not to run anyone’s lives for them, or assist anyone with public assistance when people fall on hard times. Just to protect the people from predators both foreign and domestic.  

Libertarian Party: ‘The Libertarian Party’s 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve’

Source:Libertarian Party- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“The Libertarian Party’s 41 year campaign to abolish the Federal Reserve”

From the Libertarian Party

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party.

The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today because there isn’t a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren’t purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right and Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare, and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left (Far-Left, really) a combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don’t seem to believe in it.

The Democratic Party also has the whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I’m not a Libertarian even though I’m completely against big government myself, but whether you’re a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don’t have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party.

The Libertarian Party believes in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don’t just speak about aspects of it that they like as they’re trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don’t like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

ABC Sports: Thomas Hearns vs. Marvin Hagler- 1985 World Middleweight Championship

Source:ABC Sports- Tommy Hearns vs Marv Hagler, from 1985.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Marvin Hagler VS Tommy Hearns (full fight)" 

From Ower Asdf

Hearns-Hagler for the World Middleweight Championship in 1985, might be the best, great, short fight of all-time. But the reason it was a great short fight is because Tommy Hearns made two tactical mistakes: 

One, perhaps not his fault which was to break his hand hitting the top of Marvin Hagler's rock-solid head. Which obviously affected Hearns performance the rest of the fight. But the other mistake which was something he could have avoided was to get into a slugfest with Hagler a man who was a devastating body puncher who would just wear you out. Not that different from a Joe Frazier, but who avoided punches very well and could take a lot of great shots. Not that he had to very often. 

Hearns, being 6'1 and very quick with a great jab, should've worked the outside and pounded Hagler when he had him hurt. But you don't go toe-to-toe with a bulldog, when all you need is a leash to keep him under control. But Hearns landed a lot of great shots, but took too much punishment and breaking his hand essentially ended the fight for him.

Murray Boochkin & Karl Hess: Anarchism in America (1983)

Source:IMDB- Anarchists and Libertarians: what's the modern difference?

Source:Real Life Journal

"A colorful and provocative survey of anarchism in America, the film attempts to dispel popular misconceptions and trace the historical development of the movement. The film explores the movement both as a native American philosophy stemming from 19th century American traditions of individualism, and as a foreign ideology brought to America by immigrants. The film features rare archival footage and interviews with significant personalities in anarchist history including Murray Boochkin and Karl Hess, and also live performance footage of the Dead Kennedys."   

From IMDB 

"In 1979 Clark won the Libertarian Party presidential nomination at the party's convention in Los Angeles, California. He published a book on his programs, A New Beginning, with an introduction by Eugene McCarthy. During the campaign, Clark positioned himself as a peace candidate and emphasized both large budget and tax cuts, as well as outreach to liberals and progressives unhappy with the resumption of Selective Service registration and the arms race with the Soviet Union.[6] Clark was endorsed by the Peoria Journal Star of Peoria, Illinois.[7]

When asked in a television interview to summarize libertarianism, Clark used the phrase "low-tax liberalism," causing some consternation among traditional libertarian theorists, most notably Murray Rothbard.[8][9] Clark's running to the center marked the start of a split within the Libertarian Party between a moderate faction led by Ed Crane and a radical faction led by Rothbard[10] that eventually came to a head in 1983, with the moderate faction walking out of the party convention after the nomination for the 1984 presidential race went to David Bergland.[11]

Ed Clark's running mate in 1980 was David H. Koch of Koch Industries, who pledged part of his personal fortune to the campaign for the vice-presidential nomination, enabling the Clark/Koch ticket to largely self-fund and run national television advertising.

Clark received 921,128 votes (1.1% of the total nationwide);[12] the highest number and percentage of popular votes a Libertarian Party candidate had ever received in a presidential race up to that point. His strongest support was in Alaska, where he came in third place with 11.7% of the vote, finishing ahead of independent candidate John Anderson and receiving almost half as many votes as Jimmy Carter.[13] Clark's record for most votes won by a Libertarian presidential candidate stood for 32 years until it was broken by Gary Johnson in 2012. His Libertarian vote percentage of 1.1% ranks 3rd behind Johnson's 3.3% showing in 2016 and Jo Jorgensen's 1.2% performance in 2020."  

From Wikipedia 

This photo is from the 1980 Libertarian Party Convention with a feature about Ed Clark who was their nominee for President. But that video is not currently available anywhere.

Source:Libertarian Party- 1980 Libertarian Party nominee for President, Ed Clark (Libertarian, California)

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. 

Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. 

What American Socialists could say instead said is: “That capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Right Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.  

Reason Magazine: Lisa Kennedy- 'Did the GOP Pick Tampa Because of the Strippers? And Did Mitt Romney Pick Ryan Because of His Hard-Bod?'

Source:Reason Magazine- I believe this woman is a Sarah Palin impersonator. But I beg you not to quote me on that.

"So the Republicans are heading to Tampa to whoop it up at their "Yes We Did Too Build It Ourselves" convention.

Florida in late August? Goodness gracious, it's not about the heat, or the humidity -- it's about the nudity!

There's a reason that Tampa was the backdrop for Magic Mike, the hard bodied hit movie of the summer: The city is packed ass-cheek to jowl with strip clubs catering to every customer niche. That's capitalism at its finest and something the GOP pretends to understand.

The moist evening air in the lightning capital of America ripples with anticipation the way that the chins of convention speakers such as Governor Chris Christie do at snack time.

Is it just a coincidence that the Mitt Romney picked Congressman Paul Ryan for his running mate?

Hardly.

Ryan is a highly public practitioner of the P90X "insanity" workout and is reported to have washboard abs that the ladies dream of taking out for a spin cycle or two.

Ryan famously wears his suits David Byrne style -- two or three sizes too big -- but as anyone who saw Magic Mike can tell you, oversized clothes just make the stripper-reveal that much sexier.

Local strip club owners aren't expected the GOP base to flood the red-light zones like Super Bowl attendees have in the past. One of them told the press, "The Mitt Romneys aren't going to go into adult entertainment clubs" and another opined, "I don't think those people are coming to party."

But maybe the top -- and bottom -- of the GOP ticket ought to skip the boring speeches and funny hats at the convention center and instead check out the fleshpots of Tampa.

And Mitt Romney could get to know the non-unionized independent contractors who work hard for their money and have overcome more than a few bumps and grinds to inject life into an economy that's limper than Liberace at a speculum convention.

Strippers, like the rest of us, built their business the old-fashioned way: They earned it. 

And a loosened-up GOP that showed some kinship -- or is that skinship? - with real working men and women just might be worth tipping a few bucks." 

From Reason Magazine

If the Republican Party had a choice between raising hell of a lot of money, I mean a frickin truck load of money (to keep it clean) or to stick with their so-called Christian, moral values and principles, what do you think they would do? Actually, scratch that, because I think the answer is obvious. 

It's one thing to play holier than now on TV and on blogs, radio, social media, etc, but when you are a national political party, you are in the business to win and that means raising a helluva lot of money. Even if that means raising money from sources that your right-wing says publicly needs to be outlawed (even though privately they love their strip clubs, casinos, prostitutes, and homosexuality) because you are not much of a political party, if you can't win major elections. 

Sure, the Republican Party could've held their national convention in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, or some other third-world state that they have to have to have any shot of winning back The White House. But renting choppers and private jets, and boats (because there are not enough roads to get around the state) can be very expensive. 

So instead the modern Republicans Party picks a place and state that's doing very well economically and even financially, that could definitely go Democrat again in 2012, like in 2006 and 2008. Because ruby red states simply don't have the money and infrastructure to host hundreds of thousands of escaped mental patients (also known as the Christian-Right) in their states and let them have their convention there. 

Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand (1959)

Source:Open Culture- pre-CBS News 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace had his own interview talk show on ABC.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Yesterday we featured Alain de Botton’s television broadcast on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Today, we feature another, earlier television broadcast on a much more recently active philosopher: Mike Wallace’s 1959 interview of Ayn Rand, writer and founder of the school of thought known as Objectivism. But should we really call Rand, who achieved most of her fame with novels like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, a philosopher? Most of us come to know her through her fiction, and many of us form our opinions of her based on the divisive, capitalism-loving, religion-hating public persona she carefully crafted. Just as Nietzsche had his ideas about how individual human beings could realize their potential by enduring hardship, Rand has hers, all to do with using applied reason to pursue one’s own interests.

Mainstream, CBS-watching America got quite an introduction to this and other tenets of Objectivism from this installment in what Mike Wallace calls a “gallery of colorful people.” The interviewer, in the allotted half-hour, probes as many Randian principles as possible, especially those against altruism and self-sacrifice. “What’s wrong with loving your fellow man?” Wallace asks, and Rand responds with arguments the likes of which viewers may never have heard before: “When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.” Does Ayn Rand still offer the bracing cure for a rudderless, mealy-mouthed America which has forgotten what’s what? Or does her philosophy ultimately turn out to be too simple — too simple to engage with, and too simple to improve our society? The debate continues today, with no sign of resolution.” 

From Open Culture 

“In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when “the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear.”

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati’s plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.” 

Source:Open Culture- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview in 1959.

From Truth Tube 

This photo is from the Mike Wallace Interview with Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand in 1959. But that video is apparently not available online right now.

Source:Truth Tube- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview in 1959.

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard, because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians, including President’s, and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview.

Mike Wallace could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

Mike Wallace interviewed columnists and other writers like authors people who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things, professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known.

So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the let’s say Social Democrat in doing this interview: self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate.

Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, Wallace instead questioned  Rand’s philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman- On British TV

Source:Alan Meires- the world boxing heavyweight division at it's best.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Frazier, Ali and Foreman On British TV Show Very Funny. I found this buy luck the British BBC  was broadcasting this as a tribute to the late Great Jo Fraziers Death. 18 October 1989."

From Alan Meires 

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. 

Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. 

Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat him. 

George beat Smokin Joe twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together. 

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ayn Rand (1967)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson, in 1967.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Many videotapes of Johnny Carson’s 1960s episodes were lost in the fire of NBC’s archives, but at least part of Ayn Rand’s first appearance on The Tonight Show (she was on three times over the years, clearly Carson was a fan) has survived and has been posted on YouTube.

Apparently, Carson snubbed his other guests that evening and kept Rand on for the entire 90 minute show. Topics include raising children, religion, the military draft and the Vietnam War.”  

From Dangerous Minds 

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson, in 1967.

“Ayn Rand’s First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967”  

From Men's Business Association

Johnny Carson, was accustomed to entertaining people, doing skit comedy, standup comedy and interviewing other entertainers. And I’m not saying that Johnny Carson was an ignorant or uneducated man, the opposite was true and he was interested in politics and current affairs. And made fun of people in this business as part of his act. But he was accustomed to interviewing entertainers, not intellectuals like Ayn Rand. Johnny, was accustomed to interviewing people who entertained others for a living, rather than interviewing people who get paid to educate people about philosophy and history.

So when Johnny interviewed Ayn Rand in 1967 on his show, it was a step up for him and probably something he had to do a serious amount of prep work to prepare for. Like reading Ayn Rand’s books and reading articles about her, checking out any news footage about her as well.

Ayn Rand, wasn’t someone who was very commonly known in Hollywood (To put it mildly) The intellectuals they were familiar with, already held office and were politicians. Rather than people on the outside looking in, perhaps trying to build a counter-movement, which is what Ayn Rand was doing to a certain extent.

So when someone like a Johnny Carson is interviewing someone who some Libertarians perhaps consider the mother of the Libertarian movement in America, instead of interviewing the latest pop or rock star, or hit celebrity and talking about that person’s latest divorce or bout with the law, Johnny was giving his audience and different flavor and something very different to think about on his show. And he was very good at that. 

HBO Sports: George Foreman vs Michael Moorer- World Heavyweight Championship (1994)

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1994.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Michael Moorer defends the heavyweight title against George Foreman. Entire HBO program from beginning to end. Hosted by Jim Lampley, Gil Clancy, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1994."  

From Sterling Wainscott

This a fight that Mike Moorer would like to have back. This fight reminds me a little of George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1974 where Muhammad, waited for Big George, to punch himself out while landing enough punches in the fight to stay ahead. But essentially let Foreman land his punches thinking he wasn't built to last and would punch himself out. And that is when Ali went to work on him and knocked him down for the ten count. 

This was a little different where Big George, lost almost all the rounds if not all of them and did enough to buy himself time to capitalize on a mistake from Moorer, which is where he hit him with a 1-2 and knocked him out.

Big George, is 45 at this point and in his eighth year of his famous comeback looking to win back the world championship. Weighing in at 255-260 pounds and slow, but still having devastating power and the ability to take great punches. 

Mike Mooere, 26 at this point and should have been in this prime and was prepared at least physically to hold on the title for a long time. He beat Evander Holyfield for the championship in 1993. He was 6'2, 215-220 pounds, real quick and real powerful. But perhaps a bit overconfident lacking the work-ethic needed to stay as a world champion. Not that different from Riddick Bowe, or Buster Douglas.

So going into this fight this almost looked like a mismatch. People thinking that Moorer, would pound Foreman the whole fight and be able to avoid Foreman's big jab and win most if not all the rounds. Either wear Foreman out, or win with a landslide decision. 

The cliche always has a punchers chance, was never more correct than in this fight. George Foreman, in every fight he ever fought was always 1-2 punches away from winning. Because he could knock anyone out in 1-2 punches. Or nail you so hard with one punch and then pound you with several big blows after that would take you out. 

Big George, caught Moorer with one of his huge jabs and then decked him with a punch that Moorer didn't see. And that is how he won the World Heavyweight Championship. Where he trailed the whole fight.

Liberty Pen: The Open End With Ron Suskind- 'Property Rights Up In Smoke'

Source:Liberty Pen- holy smokes, Batman! Tobacco under attack on The Open End With Ron Suskind. LOL

"Liberty is lost incrementally. One increment was losing domain over the air in one's private property. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

Tobacco is the perfect example of why regulation beats prohibition, as bad as tobacco is with all of the diseases it's linked to, we'll never be able to eliminate tobacco from America. This is a realization that we've made as a country, that we are not going to try to protect Americans from themselves when it comes to tobacco and alcohol. And it's time we made the same decision with marijuana as well. But the debate when it comes to tobacco is a little different. 

The tobacco debate is a little different because when a non-smoker such as myself or someone else is in the presence of any other non-smoker, the tobacco of the smoker directly affects the health of the non- smoker. 2nd hand smoking is actually worse for you then 1st hand smoking. Which is why people are prohibited from smoking tobacco in a lot of public places, like hospitals and schools. (To use as examples) If you are in the hospital for Lung Cancer, a horrible disease, the last thing you need to do is breathing someone else's tobacco, breathing is already hard enough. 

What we've decided as a country that people have the Freedom of Choice in whether to smoke tobacco or not. But they don't have the Freedom of Choice to decide whether others should be forced to smoke as well.

As a Liberal I'm a big believer in Freedom of Choice but again a long as people aren't hurting innocent people with the choices that they make. We aren't saying as a country generally that Americans can't smoke or can't smoke in bars (and that sort thing) but what we are saying is that smokers can't force others to breathe their smoke. Which is why we have smoking sections in bars and non-smoking sections. Smoking in America is essentially the freedom to hurt yourself but not the freedom to hurt others with your smoking.

HBO Sports: Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes- World Heavyweight Championship (1982)

Source:HBO Sports- Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, for the WHC in 1982.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney (High Quality) 11th of June, 1982...............Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada WBC Heavyweight World Championship"  

From Katis 

"They met thirty-five years ago under the stars in that neon desert of illusion, Las Vegas, drawn together by hate, cynicism, greed. Mere sports seemed like an afterthought that night. On June 11, 1982, hardscrabble Larry Holmes, whose magnificent bitterness had fueled his rise to the heavyweight championship, met affable Gerry Cooney, young, powerful, Irish, unproven, and feverishly revered. With racism looming over the promotion from the day it first kicked off, Holmes-Cooney became a national Rorschach test with ugly interpretations. More than 30,000 spectators gathered to see Holmes and Cooney wage war, with millions more tuning in on closed-circuit, radio, and pay-per-view. It was the biggest fight of its time and, perhaps, a brief glimpse into the dark heart of America. For Cooney, who suggested something out of Clifford Odets—“Like a bullet! All future and no past”— during the Studio 54 heyday, there would be precious few tomorrows in boxing after what happened at Caesars Palace. For Holmes, whose nasty edge never dulled as the years went gray, there were more riches and glories to come…along with enough bleak memories to last a wakeful life. The following is a media collage of the events surrounding one of the most cheerless fights in history." 

Source:This Brutal Glory- Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, for the WHC in 1982.

From This Brutal Glory

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. 

Cooney didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. He reminds me a little to George Wepner and if he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. 

This was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. 

Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out. 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- David Lampo: 'Why the GOP Should Embrace Gay Rights'

Source:Reason Magazine- interviewing David Lambo from the CATO Institute.

"In most cases, rank-and-file Republicans are already pro-gay rights," says David Lampo, publications director at the libertarian Cato Institute and the author of the new book, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights.

Despite the influence in the party of social conservatives and the Religious Right, Lampo argues that if Republicans actually followed their own rhetoric about limiting the size and scope of government, they would be able to attract gay and lesbian voters who otherwise vote Democratic. An active member of Virginia's Log Cabin Republicans, Lampo believes the party's acceptance of marriage equality is inevitable given the huge social gains gays have made in recent decades." 

From Reason Magazine

What the right-wing (not Center-Right) of the Republican Party doesn't understand about gays (men and women) in America, is that gays tend to be Republican ideologically. I'm talking about constitutional, fiscal, economic, national security, Conservative Republicans. So trying to push gays out of the Republican Party simply because they're gay, because one part of your party (as big as it may be) is very stupid politically. Assuming the Republican Party is still in the business to win elections. Which generally has always been the goal of any major political party which is not just to win elections, but win enough elections to be a governing, majority, political party.

Morton Downey Show: Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Buzz Feed- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Morton Downey Show, in 1988.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Ron Paul has never been considered a conventional politician, but his 1988 appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. Show is bizarre even by his standards. Paul took, on among others, Guardian Angel Lisa Sliwa in 15 minute showdown that featured Paul defending the traditional Libertarian policy he still defends today.” 

From Buzz Feed 

“Hilarious raucus TV appearance with a chain-smoking host, eccentric guests and a wild audience”

Source:Andy Warhol- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian Texas) on the Morton Downey Show in 1988.

From Andy Warhol

Morton Downey Jr. who died from the overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs, here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well, actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well, that is Washington speak for: “Drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization.” 

Learn Liberty: Professor Daniel J. D'Amico- 'US Prison Population: The Largest in the World'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor John D'Amico talking about American prisons.

"The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world—more even than China or Russia. Prof. Daniel J. D'Amico explains that as of 2010 more than 1.6 million people were serving jail sentences in America. Professor D'Amico suggests that "prisons are not what we think about when we think of America, and they shouldn't have to be."  According to D'Amico, a free country should not have 1.6 million people in prison, and a fiscally responsible country cannot afford to. As Prof. D'Amico points out, it is time for Americans to recognize that the U.S. criminal justice system is desperately in need of reform." 

From Learn Liberty

Even though the United States boasts about being a liberal democracy and to a large extent it is and as a Liberal Democrat I'm proud of that, we have about 2 million people who don't live in liberty. Americans who are incarcerated and a lot of people are in prison or under some type of public supervision because they deserve to be, but a lot of those same people who are incarcerated are partly as a result of society. 

We have a lot of Americans who come from bad homes, weren't raised correctly, stuck going to bad schools and as a result of these things end up dropping out of school and falling into wrong crowds. But the lack of quality education, that I believe at least is one contributor to our high poverty rate, is just on factor that leads to our high prison population. 

America still has too many of what Professor Milton Friedman called bad laws, where we end up sending people to prison who really aren't a threat to anyone, except for perhaps themselves, like with the so-called War On Drugs, which is a major contributor our Prison Industrial Complex. Ot we send people to prison who could do their time in county jail or in halfway houses, supervised community service, instead of looking at 10 plus years in a state prison where they'll learn nothing except how to survive their prison sentence and become a more successful criminal.

America only needs more prisons because we keep sending people to prison who don't need to be there. We need prisons for hardcore criminals, especially violent felons, people who represent a real threat to either our physical safety or our economy. But it's a waste of tax dollars to send people to prison who are guilty of nothing other than perhaps hurting themselves.

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch- 'A Conversation with Cato's David Boaz at Freedom Fest 2012'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking to Cato Institute EVP David Boaz.

"[President Obama has] done more drone strikes than any president in history, he's deported more illegal immigrants, than any president in history [...] more marijuana raids than any president in history. So in that sense, he has a lot to boast about and yet I don't hear him boasting about most of these things," says David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute.

Reason magazine's Matt Welch sat down with Boaz at FreedomFest 2012 to discuss why progressives should be upset with President Obama, how many libertarians are really out there and control of the Cato Institute.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For an ever-growing playlist, go here now... 

From Reason Magazine

If your definition of a Libertarian is someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, as well as the U.S. Constitution, property rights, low taxes, the best government is the government that's closest to home and perhaps does the least, then I believe there are a lot of people in and outside of the Republican Party today. Including what's left of the Center-Right of the Republican Party, that could either be considered a Constitutional Conservative or Conservative Libertarian. Just look at Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, and others in Congress like Senators Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Jeff Flake, and some House Republicans, as well as the people that they represent. 

But if your definition of a Libertarian is someone who believes that government is essentially incompetent at everything or doesn't have the constitutional authority to do practically anything, who actually takes whacked out, marijuana high, conspiracy theories seriously, like JFK assassination conspiracy theories, or that 9/11 was an inside job, then I believe that 15% number that David Boaz referenced in this interview is probably right.

Reason: Javier Sicilia- 'The Caravan For Peace Calls For an End to The Drug War'

Source:Reason Magazine- The so-called Caravan For Peace.

"On August 12, where the wall between Mexico and the U.S. meets the Pacific Ocean, acclaimed Mexican poet Javier Sicilia and busloads of people who are fed up with the drug war launched the Caravan for Peace. Over the next several weeks, the Caravan will travel to 25 different U.S. cities with the goal of starting a serious national dialogue about the failure of drug prohibition."

From Reason

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors, first, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if its abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you. Don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save. People who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others.

Nate Cox: ‘Ron Paul on the Principles of the Libertarian Party (1988)’

Source:Nate Cox- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Ron Paul explains the principles of the Libertarian Party. This footage was taken in the 80’s when he was running for President under the Libertarian Ticket.” 

From Nate Cox 

When I was growing up at least in the 1980s and early 90s, a Libertarian was essentially someone who believed in the non-aggression principal. Which means you don’t hurt me and I won’t hurt you and as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person, people should be as free as birds to live their own lives. And where government comes in is to protect innocent people from predators, but not to run people’s lives for them.

I believe that’s changing today where you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are essentially right-wing Anarchists who don’t seem to have any role for government whatsoever.

Representative Ron Paul at least as long as I’ve been falling him since he returned to the House of Representatives in 1997 as a Republican, seems to be in the first school of Libertarians. And does believe in at least some government, but not big enough to run our lives for us.  

The New American: 'Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney - Fiscal Issues'

Source:The New American- with a look at Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama.

"Tom Eddlem's 4 part series comparing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's stances on important topics that may decide this year's election.

This video compares the two's views on fiscal issues." 

From The New American

To put it simply and bluntly: neither Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama have a serious debt and deficit reduction plan. 

Mitt Romney wants to cut taxes for businesses and individual investors, while borrowing the money to do that, while increasing the defense budget, while borrowing the money to do that as well. 

President Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, but then spend a lot more money on infrastructure and additional tax cuts for the middle class and low-income workers. 

So if you are a true fiscal conservative, I don't think you have a candidate to like here. 

Talking Points Memo: President Obama- 'Rips Paul Ryan On Medicare'

Source:Talking Points Memo- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) on Medicare.

"Obama Rips Paul Ryan On Medicare" 

From Talking Points Memo

I don't really have anything to add what President Obama said here, because he's damn right. 

Under the Obama plan or the Affordable Care Act, people who currently are on Medicare or are waiting to be eligible for Medicare get to say on Medicare and keep getting their health insurance from Medicare. 

Under the so-called Ryan plan that was offered by U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential nominee, people who are currently on Medicare, would be able to keep their traditional Medicare. But people in my generation, as well Paul Ryan's generation, people in Barack Obama's generation (depending on how you define Gen-Xer's) we would only a voucher that wouldn't keep up with the costs of private health insurance, that we could use to buy private health insurance. But the Medicare health insurance program would be gone.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Gary Johnson at FreedomFest (2012)

Source:Reason Magazine- interviewing Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.

"There are a lot more people in this country that describe themselves as libertarian than vote libertarian," says Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. "You are a libertarian. How about voting just this way one time."

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Gary Johnson at FreedomFest 2012, to discuss how to cut the deficit by reforming Medicaid and Medicare, and how his campaign is performing in the national polls. 

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks... 

From Reason Magazine

If this sounds familiar it's because I wrote the same thing at FreeState Now. 

I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson for President. And if I don't vote for him for President, it won't be so much because I don't like his campaign or what he stands for, but because he's not going to win and I'm not comfortable with a President Mitt Romney and a Tea Party Congress (House and Senate) which would be horrible for this country. Whatever you think of President Barack Obama and I have my own issues with him, especially as it relates to civil liberties, at least he stands up to the Tea Party, Populist-Right of the Republican Party. 

But if you look at all the presidential nominees in 2012, Gary Johnson is the only serious candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility, especially as it to the national debt and deficit. He's the only one saying that borrowing and spending is bad for the economy and we can't keep doing that and need to stop that, as well as cut things and block grant programs that should be run by the states, especially as it relates to public assistance. And he's also a strong believer in civil liberties and personal freedom, as well as federalism, and it s strong opponent of the so-called War On Drugs. So there's a lot to like about Gary Johnson's presidential campaign. 

Financial Survival Network: Kerry Lutz- Interviewing Gary Johnson: 'Proven Budget Cuter From New Mexico'

Source:Financial Survival Network- Kerry Lutz interviewing Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.

"We met up with Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and present Libertarian candidate for President. Gary was a former governor of New Mexico. During his two terms in office, of an overwhelmingly Democrat state, he vetoed 750 bills and exercised thousands of line item vetos. He was so effective that his opposition referred to him as Governor Veto. He ran for the Republican nomination this year, but he was kept out of the early debates by CNN and CNBC rules, which were created to keep out minor candidates. As a result, he never attained the status of serious candidate as far as the Main Stream Media was concerned. While his odds of winning the nomination are virtually non-existent, his message is compelling, and he has provided a road map for other fiscally sane candidates to shake things up." 

From the Financial Survival Network 

I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson for President. And if I don't vote for him for President, it won't be so much because I don't like his campaign or what he stands for, but because he's not going to win and I'm not comfortable with a President Mitt Romney and a Tea Party Congress (House and Senate) which would be horrible for this country. Whatever you think of President Barack Obama and I have my own issues with him, especially as it relates to civil liberties, at least he stands up to the Tea Party, Populist-Right of the Republican Party. 

But if you look at all the presidential nominees in 2012, Gary Johnson is the only serious candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility, especially as it to the national debt and deficit. He's the only one saying that borrowing and spending is bad for the economy and we can't keep doing that and need to stop that, as well as cut things and block grant programs that should be run by the states, especially as it relates to public assistance. And he's also a strong believer in civil liberties and personal freedom, as well as federalism, and it s strong opponent of the so-called War On Drugs. So there's a lot to like about Gary Johnson's presidential campaign.