Peter Schiff: Michael Moore: ‘Americans Wouldn’t Need Guns if We Had More Welfare’

Source:Peter Schiff- talking about New-Left political activist Michael Moore.

Source:FreeState Now

“Looks like I read the gun survey wrong. In my defense, the first time I looked at it was live on the show as I read it. It turns out that 44% of whites own guns while only 27% of blacks do. A correct reading of the data reveals that while Whites represent 78% of the population, they represent 85% of gun owners. Since white gun owners may possess more guns than non-white owners, Moore’s 90% statistic may be accurate. However, as whites as a group are more affluent than blacks, there are many other items they are more likely to possess. Also, whites are far more likely to be hunters than blacks, so are more likely to own guns for that purpose. In addition, gun ownership is more heavily concentrated in rural areas. As a disproportionate number of blacks live in cities, their percentage of gun ownership is naturally lower.”

From Peter Schiff

To answer Peter Schiff’s question: yes, you can be racist towards your own race. You can be a member of one race and not like that race and the people who are members of that race and see them as inferior and everything else.

I’m not calling Michael Moore a racist, necessarily, he might just be a left-wing demagogue to appeal to the Far-Left flank in America and to look cool with those people. Similar to how Governor George Wallace said horrible things about African-Americans in the 1960s, to appeal to right-wing populists in America.

Lew Rockwell: Walter E. Williams- ‘Are We Equal?’

Source:Walter E. Williams- with one of his best quotes.

“Are women equal to men? Are Jews equal to gentiles? Are blacks equal to Italians, Irish, Polish and other white people? The answer is probably a big fat no, and the pretense or assumption that we are equal – or should be equal – is foolhardy and creates mischief. Let’s look at it.

Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Female intelligence is packed much closer to the middle of the bell curve, whereas men’s intelligence has far greater variability. That means that though there are many more male geniuses, there are also many more male idiots. The latter might partially explain why more men are in jail than women.

Watch any Saturday afternoon college basketball game and ask yourself the question fixated in the minds of liberals everywhere: “Does this look like America?” Among the 10 players on the court, at best there might be two white players. If you want to see the team’s white players, you must look at the bench. A Japanese or Chinese player is close to being totally out of the picture, even on the bench. Professional basketball isn’t much better, with 80 percent of the players being black, but at least there’s a Chinese player. Professional football isn’t much better, with blacks being 65 percent. In both sports, blacks are among the highest-paid players and have the highest number of awards for excellence. Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including black Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting.”

You can read the rest at Lew Rockwell

I think what Walter Williams point here is if you look at the racial and ethnic statistics in America, European-Americans (from all ethnicities) are better at some things than African and Asian-Americans and African-Americans are better than European and Asian-Americans at other things. That Asian and European-Americans are better at academically, statistically at least and that African-Americans tend to be better than their counterparts at American sports like basketball and football. I agree with him there.

My point is that race and ethnicity doesn’t determine how well someone does in America. We all start off equal to everyone else racially and ethnically when we are born. Being European or Asian doesn’t automatically mean you’ll be better than African-Americans academically simply because of you race. And being African-American doesn’t automatically mean you’ll be better at sports than European and Asian-Americans.

Success and freedom in American is mostly determined by how we’re raised by our parents. And if we are raised by both our biological parents, we have a much chance at being successful in America, as opposed to just being raised by our mother or father. Single-parent households tend to be headed by women in America, not men. And what we do with the opportunities that we are given in life and how we apply our own intelligence and abilities determines how well we’ll do in America. Not our race or ethnicity.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

American Thinker: Dr. Tom Barron- 'The Left's Moral Relativism'

Source:American Thinker- they really should change the name of their publication.

“This liberal commentary is a perfect example of the moral relativism that is a part of the liberal/progressive belief system dominating our educational system, mainstream media, and current government.

Morals are an inculcated set of universal social principles that promote the survival and progress of people and societies. They function as a guide to individual conduct in a societal context. Morals are the standard by which we are able to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad. If one were to query the word “moral”, one would find synonyms such as ethical, good, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just.

Moral Relativism is the precarious philosophical position that moral judgments are different across different people and different cultures. The terms “good” and “bad,” “right” and “wrong” do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, rather they are relative to the traditions, practices and views of the group or society in which they are constructed.

Consistent with the utopian, radical egalitarian core of their belief system, liberal/progressives believe that no group or society is better than any other, and that the different moral views held by others cannot be judged as superior or inferior, or right or wrong. Furthermore, they believe that one must tolerate the behavior of others even when one disagrees about the morality of that behavior.

The egalitarian appeal of moral relativism is exemplified in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who stated that the problem of morality is that those who were considered “good” were the powerful nobles who had more education, and considered themselves better than anyone below their rank. They determined the standards to perpetuate their values and status. This theory nicely reinforces the narrative of class warfare between oppressors and the oppressed that so animates the liberal/progressive impulse.”

From The American Thinker

Myself as a Liberal and I believe I speak for all Liberals (at least Classical Liberals) when I say that morality is about how we treat each other, especially how we treat innocent people. Do we treat people the way that we want to be treated, especially the innocent, or do we intentionally hurt people, especially innocent people and do we enjoy hurting people.

The reason why we have jails and prisons in America is because we have people aren’t moral, or at least aren’t very moral. Perhaps they weren’t raised right or there’s just something about them that makes them want to hurt people and perhaps they live without a conscience.

What we do with our personal lives with our own bodies and minds, is our business. Not the business of big government or religious fundamentalists. Sleeping with people consensually before marriage, doesn’t make you immoral. But robbing someone’s home does. Or raping someone, murdering someone, etc. There’s no such thing as moral relativism when it comes to the actions that involve someone hutting and innocent person. But what we do with our own time, with our own bodies and minds, is our business, just as long as we aren’t hurting any innocent person with what we are doing. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Source:Liberty Pen- Alt-Right loudmouth Ann Coulter trying to make the Far-Right case against personal freedom.

"Ann Coulter faces John Stossel and the Students For Liberty, attempting to explain the faults of libertarianism.  Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I’ll give Ann Coulter credit for something for perhaps the first and last time, perhaps the first time I heard her make a good point about anything, that as long as we have a so-called welfare state where we have to pay for others health care and mistakes and so-forth, that we shouldn’t be forced to subsidize things that could add to those costs. Which is why she’s against legalizing marijuana.

So I guess one could actually argue here that Ann Coulter actually believes in personal freedom (even as a Far-Rightist) just as long as we don’t have a welfare state in America and taxpayers aren’t forced to subsidize the economic benefits and welfare of others. Which at least coming from her is a reasonable and even intelligent position.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Redskins: The Glory Days

Source:Billy Blythe- Redskins LB Chris Hamburger.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Washington Redskins 60’s 70’s 80’s”

From Billy Blythe 

If you look at the history of the Washington Redskins, they’ve only really had two decades where they’ve been really good for most of that decade. They only had one winning season in the entire 1960s and that was with Vince Lombardi, who didn’t lose anywhere and probably could’ve taken the Detroit Lions to the Super Bowl and that was in 1969. And yes, they won the Super Bowl in 1991,  but after 1992 they missed the playoffs for six straight seasons, including 4 losing seasons from 1993-98 and went through two head coaches.

But in the 1970s and 80s the Redskins were winners and champions for both of those decades, under George Allen and later George Gibbs. From 1971-89, they had 14 winning seasons, won 5 NFC East titles, 4 NFC championships, and two Super Bowls. Only the San Francisco 49ers won more games in the 1980s than the Redskins and only the 49ers won more Super Bowls in that decade. 

And since Joe Gibbs left after the 1992 season, the Redskins have either been really bad or stuck in mediocrity winning 7-9 games when they haven’t been horrible, but for the most part haven’t been good for a really long time, let alone Super Bowl contenders and champions, for multiple reasons mostly relating their management. (Or lack of it) But there was once a time when the Washington Redskins weren’t just good or really good or consistent winners even, but when they were one of the premiere franchises in the National Football League and pro sports in general.

Mises Daily: Mark Thornton- 'Nullify The War on Drugs'

Source:Mises Daily- with a piece about Uncle Sam's War On Drugs.

“Public opinion now favors the outright legalization of marijuana with nearly three-out-of-four adults in favor of legalizing medical marijuana. These numbers should continue to grow, because the polls exhibit a type of “generation effect,” in that people are not changing their minds as they grow older. Some prominent and diverse figures, such as Joycelyn Elders (Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General) and the Reverend Pat Robertson now openly support the legalization of marijuana.

Ideally, libertarians want to end the war on all drugs, fully and immediately, but in reality that will only happen after necessary initial steps are taken. Colorado and Washington have already taken some steps by legalizing marijuana. Other states will surely follow.

Marijuana, of course, is still illegal everywhere under Federal law. Will the Feds do something about Colorado and Washington? You bet they will. They have already announced their intentions to target large-scale growers and distributors. They claim they will not go after consumers, if only due to a lack of resources. As President Obama said, “We’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

However, don’t be too sure that your president is telling you the truth. Candidate Obama said that medical marijuana was a state issue. However, under President Obama, raids committed on medical marijuana dispensaries have occurred at four times the rate as under President Bush. The government has also threatened landlords and banks that deal with medical marijuana dispensaries.”

From Mises Daily

Does marijuana come with real health risks? Well to answer that this way: playing with fire comes with real health risks and not just with your lungs. Anytime you are dealing with narcotics (legal or otherwise) and you are injecting them into your body, you are taking a risk with your health.

The fact that marijuana comes with real health risks is not why it’s illegal under United States law. If you want to know the real reasons why it’s illegal, just ask the alcohol and tobacco industries (speaking of legal narcotics) and expect a lot of non-answers, as well as bullshit (to be frank) in response. They don’t want the competition and now have more than enough members of Congress living in their back pockets to ever prevent that from happening.

If facts and evidence had anything to do with the illegal narcotics debate in America, the so-called War On Drugs would’ve ended a long time ago. 40 years later what have so-called taxpayers gotten for this bogus (to be kind) war? 2 millions Americans in prisons, two-trillion dollars in taxes to pay for that and now more Americans than ever (including per-capita) who are either addicted to illegal narcotics or are under some type of legal supervision by law enforcement.

So I guess we can thank Uncle Sam and his millions of nephews and nieces for that, as well as the tobacco and alcohol industries, as well as the Christian-Right and the nanny-statists on the Far-Left. Who I’m sure are all proud of their work at taxpayers expense. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Peter Landy: 'A Blueprint For a Just Society'

Source:Slide Player- I guess you can call this an endorsement of feminism.

“A just society that allows their government to pass unjust laws plants the seeds of tyranny. When that same government is enforces its unju… 

From OGS-Silent Crimes 

A true just society is where everyone has the opportunity to be successful in life and what they make of that opportunity themselves is up to them. And that we are all held accountable of the decisions that we make, our success’s and failures.

Liberals believe in equality of opportunity where everyone has a good shoot at being successful in life and again what we do with those opportunities to be successful if up to us. And that we are held accountable for what we do with the opportunities that are presented for us in life.

Socialists or SocialDemocrats believe in equality of results, that everyone should have the same things and wealth in life regardless of what they bring to the table professionally and economically. Which is equality of result, that we are all entitled to the same benefits that come with life. Where we would all have the same income and so-forth, where there wouldn’t be any rich people or middle people or poor people.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Reason: Ronald Bailey- ‘Progressives Won the Social Culture War: Can Libertarians and Conservatives Win the Economic Culture War?’

Source:Reason Magazine- don't just love free speech in America?

“In a smart analysis over in the journal Democracy, New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt sets out the campaign map for the looming war between Progressives and Economic Liberals. First, he declares that it’s all over except for shouting in the decades-long Social Culture War between the religious right and secular liberals:

Issues related to sexuality, drugs, religion, family life, and patriotism were particularly vexing, and many people over 40 can recall the names of battlefields such as Mapplethorpe, needle exchange, 2 Live Crew, and the flag-burning amendment. But the left won a smashing victory in the 2012 elections, including the first victories at the ballot box for gay marriage.

The Culture War has moved on to the Economic Theater in which the fight is over the size and cost of government. Using insights from his moral foundations theory which probes how people put their together moral beliefs based on six different foundations – Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation – Haidt delineates the battle lines for the culture war in the Economics Theater. To make a long story short, Haidt’s data suggest that leftwingers chiefly rely on the first three moral foundations, Care, Fairness and Liberty, whereas folks with a conservative bent construct their sense of morality using all six. At stake are the hearts, minds and votes of the younger generation…

Source:Reason

Lets face it, Liberals with the help of Libertarians have won the culture war. America has now become the country that Barry Goldwater envisioned when he ran for President in 1964. A big government out of our wallets and bedrooms country. Where both economic and social freedom are embraced and where ignorance and intolerance and governmental interference with how we live our lives and spend our money is looked down upon.

Which is great news for Classical Liberals (the real Liberals) such as myself and others who’ve been fighting for this type of country at least since Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992. But even as far back as when Jack Kennedy ran for President in 1960 before the social democratic wing of the party took over in the 1960s. And this is something that the real Liberals should celebrate, but shouldn’t relax because we have another political battle to fight and to win as well.

The next political battle in America won’t be a culture war as far as how much social freedom is tolerable and can  be afforded. Like I said, Liberals with the help of Libertarians have already won that war. But the next political battle in America will be fought about what type of an economy do we want to have and what exactly will government’s role be in the economy. But this political battle won’t just be fought between Democrats and Republicans, but between Democrats and Democrats:

Progressives who want to expand economic freedom for those who don’t have it so they have the same economic freedom as the rest of the country. The other side in the Democratic Party the left-wing (or Democratic Socialists)  Democrats who want government to have more control because they believe the rich are too wealthy and by in large don’t trust Americans to make their own decisions.

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

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Wenzel: 'Murray Rothbard On Socialism's Incentive Problem'

Source:Robert Wenzel- Economist Murray Rothbard. 

“Murray Rothbard on Socialism’s Incentive Problem” 

From Robert Wenzel

The main problem with state-ownership, or Marxism (named after Karl Marx) is the lack of incentives that comes from competition and individual choice. People making decisions and then seeing for themselves how they worked and didn’t work.

When you have a central authority in charge of an economy, with the central government responsible for the management of the national business’s, those companies don’t have to succeed and produce in order to stay in business for those employees to keep their jobs. The state up to a certain point anyway, can simply just bailout the failing business’s and borrow the money up to a point to do that. When you don’t have competition, you don’t have to produce a good product to stay in business, because your customers have no other choices.

So to sort of pick up on what Murray Rothbard was saying about socialism: if everyone is equal and entitled to same benefits in life, you’ve eliminated the incentive to individuals to be individuals and for them to produce, contribute, to self-improve, to be creative, to learn, because you are telling them that everyone is equal regardless of what they bring to society and therefor entitled to the same benefits in life, that of course will come from government. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CBS News: 'Stephen Slevin- Awarded $15.5 Million Settlement After Being Held in Solitary Confinement For Two Years in NM Jail'

Source:CBS News- "Stephen Slevin at the time of his arrest for drunken driving in August 2005 (left) and shortly after being released from solitary confinement in May 2007." From CBS News.

"A man who was arrested for drunken driving and then held in solitary confinement for two years without trial was awarded $15.5 million in one of the largest federal civil rights settlements in history, a southern New Mexico county announced Tuesday.

The settlement stems from mediation ordered by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Dona Ana County was appealing a lower court decision that upheld a $22 million judgment that was awarded last year to former county inmate Stephen Slevin."

From CBS News 

I don't know all the details of this case, but just from the outside at least, what happened to Stephen Slevin in New Mexico, looks like cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps a credit to the man's character that he didn't go completely crazy and try to kill himself, because not only was he completely isolated not just from the outside world, but completely isolated from the rest of the jail and not even allowed to shave or perhaps bathe while he was in solitary confinement. As the jury in this lawsuit declared and awarded Mr. Slevin was his apparent cruel and unusual punishment.

Brookings Institution: Gigi Hinton & Ron Haskins- ‘America’s Welfare Transformation’

Source:Brookings Institution- Senior Fellow Ron Haskins.

Source:FreeState Now

“Ron Haskins: In 1996, welfare was changed from an entitlement to a program with time limits and work requirements. Has this welfare reform worked?”

From Brookings 

In 1996, a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton made Welfare to Work the law of the country, requiring people who are collecting Welfare Insurance to prepare themselves to go to work, go to school, go back to school, get job training, get help with job placement. And in return would be subsidized for these activities with child care and continue support that they were getting on public assistance.

The idea was that people on Welfare would go to work and not collect public assistance indefinitely. And that states would get some flexibility in how they run their Welfare program so we could see what’s working and not working. And as a result as well as with the economic boom of the 1990s, we saw millions of people get off of public assistance and out of poverty and into the workforce.

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

Roll Call: Stuart Rothenberg: 'Can President Obama Put the House In Play in 2014?'

Source:Roll Call- columnist Stuart Rothenberg.

"Over the past few weeks, I have heard some people suggest that President Barack Obama’s strategy in pursuing his legislative agenda is more about creating issues for the 2014 midterm elections than about passing legislation.

Whether that is true, it leads to an obvious question: Is the president able to put the House back into Democratic hands, even if he wants to?

Electing a Democratic House next year would allow Obama to push a more unapologetically liberal agenda in his final two years, which he clearly would prefer. And it certainly sounds as if he will be more active during the 2014 midterms than he was in 2010, when his party saw a net loss of 63 House seats and fell into the minority.

He has already committed to holding at least 14 fundraisers for his party’s two congressional campaign committees, including eight for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which will lead the party’s charge to net at least 17 House seats in 2014. He’s also told DCCC Chairman Steve Israel of New York that he will help with candidate recruitment.

It’s far too early to know whether Democrats will have some, or even any, chance to win back the House next year; candidate recruitment has just begun, the number of retirements (and open seats) is uncertain and the president’s popularity more than 20 months from now is an open question. But we do know that history, as The New York Times’ Nate Silver pointed out in a column last November, suggests that Democrats will have a very tough road to 218 seats.

Going back to the election of 1862, the only time the president’s party gained as many as 10 seats was, well, never. Even in 1934, the best showing by the president’s party in House elections since the Civil War, the president’s party gained only nine seats.

In 1998, Democrats gained a handful of seats during Bill Clinton’s second midterm (five), and Republicans gained a somewhat larger handful during George W. Bush’s first midterm (eight). But in each case, unusual circumstances — post-impeachment fallout in 1996 and political fallout from the attacks of 9/11 (plus redistricting) in 2002 — help account for the atypical results.

So, while midterm elections have produced some huge swings well in excess of 17 seats recently — in 2010, 2006, 1994 and 1982, for example — all of those swings were in the favor of the party not holding the White House.

Of course, Obama can hope to break that historical “rule,” just as he broke the rule that no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt had won re-election with an unemployment rate over 7.2 percent. Historical rules seem to be falling regularly these days. But the demise of swing districts, documented by the Cook Political Report and by Silver, narrows the playing field dramatically.

Democrats are in the unenviable position of needing to win a large percentage of the small number of seats in play, which, in turn, allows the National Republican Congressional Committee to target its resources to defend those relatively few seats. 

The president has proved to be a strong fundraiser, and he can surely raise money for the Democratic campaign committees and for individual candidates, if he so chooses. And that cash can help produce TV spots and direct-mail pieces, fund phone banks and help organize and mobilize volunteers. But lack of resources is not why Democrats lost the House in 2010 or why they did not get it back in 2012.

Maybe the biggest thing that Obama could do for his party is boost turnout among Democratic voter groups next year.

Midterm electorates tend to be whiter and older than presidential-year electorates, so turning out an electorate that looks more like 2012 (72 percent white, 19 percent 18- to 29-year-olds) than 2010 (78 percent white, 11 percent 18- to 29-year-olds) would help Democratic prospects.

But since the president will not be on the ballot next year, he will have to prove that his popularity can be transferred to other Democratic candidates or, more generally, to his party.

Of course, all of this assumes that Obama’s popularity will remain intact. He and his party seem to be outwitting the opposition at every turn and on almost every issue right now, but second presidential terms have a way of going downhill, and no one can be sure of the president’s standing 20 months from now. 

I’ll be taking a much deeper dive into the DCCC’s recent memo about the fight for the House in the near future. But for now, it’s best to start the cycle by being skeptical that Democrats can add another 17 seats in the House, even if the president makes that a high priority. 

From Roll Call

Reason: Magazine: David Lampo: 'Harvey Milk's Mixed Legacy'

Source:Reason Magazine- featuring an article about former San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk.

"The gay liberation movement burst into the country's consciousness in 1969, when thousands of gays in Manhattan rioted against endemic police harassment following a raid on a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn. Gays and lesbians began coming out of the closet in droves, and the city of choice for thousands of them was San Francisco, home to a large gay subculture since the end of World War II."

From Reason Magazine

Here's just one example of why the Republican Party is a party with suicidal tendencies: 5-10% of the population in America is Gay, they also tend to be Conservative-Libertarian. Yet since the GOP is run by Christian-Nationalists, they say gays are not welcome in their party because of who they're attracted to and how they carry themselves, even if that doesn't hurt anyone else.

Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election by roughly five million votes and two percent. Let's say he wins the gay vote overwhelmingly because they tend to be conservative on economic and fiscal policy. Not saying that makes up the difference and puts Mitt over the top, but roughly 120 million Americans voted for President in. 2013 and roughly 5-10% of that vote is Gay. That's about 6-12 million votes that Mitt essentially kissed off for fear of losing the Christian-Right.

Gays voted for President Obama because he's with them on issues as they relate to civil rights. And the GOP is basically a party that believes that gays don't even have a right to exist, which is just one example of why Republicans lost in 2012.

As far as Harvey Milk's mixed legacy as Libertarians might describe it: you have to understand that Milk was a politician who happened to be gay. Not a gay politician and that civil rights for everyone including gays wasn't his only concern. And that not all gays are on the right. 

And here's another example of why libertarianism is looking more fascist to me, because if you don't go down the line with Libertarians on all of their issues and don't look libertarian or classically conservative to them, somehow you are in favor of big government or something. Rather than saying they might not agree with us on everything, but there's enough there for Libertarians to say that we like them politically and so-forth, even if you are not a clone of Ron Paul.

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

Source:William Yurasko - before the Nationals, Washington had the Senators.

Source:Real Life Journal

"Posts about the Washington Senators, a pair of of Major League Baseball teams. The original played in the American League from 1901-1960 before Calvin Griffith moved them and they become the Minnesota Twins. The second Senators franchise played from 1961-1971, until Bob Short moved them to the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex where they became the Texas Rangers." 

From Yurasko

"Opening Days in 1957 & 1959 at Griffith Stadium.  Washington Senators vs. Baltimore Orioles" 

Source:Kay Jay- the Senators at Griffith Stadium in the late 1950s.

From Kay Jay

I'm not sure that a lot of let's say younger Washington Nationals fans are aware of this, but there's actually history of Major League Baseball in Washington with the Washington Senators. That goes back to the early 1900s, or even further back then that that lasted up until the original Senators left for Minneapolis in the early 1960s. To when Washington was rewarded another MLB franchise in the early 1960s. 

Let's call the new Senators, Senators Two, that were basically counted on to finish last every year until they left for Dallas after the 1971 season. So before the Montreal Expose relocated to Washington after the 2004 season, MLB already had a long history in Washington and the Senators even won a World Series in 1924 and at least one other American League championship as well.

The Senators did play in the American League as well in the same league as the Orioles. Where the Washington-Baltimore regional rivalry could've started in the 1950s or 1960s. Instead just in the last few years as both franchises have struggled to become contenders and finally reached that status in 2012. With the state of both the Nationals and Orioles franchises and the fact they play in separate leagues. But play each in two series a year every year and into the indefinite future. With both clubs young and very talented and poised to be contenders for a very long time. 

The Orioles-Nationals, rivalry is not only going to be real, but a rivalry between two very good teams. Making baseball in the Washington-Baltimore region very good for a long time. And something fans of both franchises will look forward to every year.

The Senators, were like the Pittsburgh Steelers before the early 1970s when the Steelers finally became really good under Chuck Noll. The Senators, even though they actually had plenty of very good and great players, similar to the Steelers in the 1950s and 60s, were expected to and generally obliged to finish in last place in the American League. 

And again similar to the Steelers, the Senators from time to time would come up with a good team and have a winning season and perhaps even contend in the American League. But the Senators were always underfunded, because their ownership under Calvin Griffith and Later Bob Short, were always very cheap and had a hard time drawing fans to their games. But Washington, like most other big sports markets, tend to need good teams to watch in order to turn out for their teams.

The Senators, weren't losers because Washington was bad baseball city and market. They were losers, because they put a lot of bad teams on the field on an annual basis. Or wouldn't have the right manager, or coaching staff, or a combination of all of those factors. 

The Senators, wouldn't have left Washington either in 1960, or in 1971, had they simply been managed well and gave their fans reasons for coming to their games. 

Washington, was not the same city and market in 1971 that it is today. It's much larger today, but as the Redskins have shown when their teams commit to winning, their fans commit to them and turn out for the games. 

The Nationals of today, have a great ballpark and very good team, because their management is committed to winning and their fans are committed to them. The Senators, could have had that as well and still be here today.

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Thomas Sowell: Human Capital (1983)

Source:Liberty Pen- Conservative writer Thomas Sowell, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1983.

"Thomas Sowell explains the value of human capital and the dynamics of foreign aid. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Without human capital or having enough human capital, countries simply won't have enough resources to build or continue a developed economy. And I'm not talking about human capital in numbers of people, there are plenty of large countries that are still third world countries: Egypt, Iran, China even, as well as India, but I'm talking about human capital in the numbers of people who have the skills to be successful in life and the ability to be productive for themselves with a good job that allows for them to be able to live a good life, but the skills to be productive for the society as a whole, because they are able to produce things that people want, need and can afford. 

Without human capital, countries won't have the resources to be able to develop the other things that countries need to be successful economically, militarily and diplomatically. Because they won't have the skills sets to be able to do these things very well. So what countries need is human capital and then the freedom to be able to use those skills that they have to produce for the rest of the country.

Robert Wenzel: 'Barack Obama's Plan to Obliterate The Republican Party'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- blogger Robert Wenzel.

"The lefty Saul Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals. In a recent op-ed at Politico, Douglas E. Schoen a former pollster for Bill Clinton and Patrick H. Caddell a former pollster for President Jimmy Carter explain  President Obama is employing Saul Alinsky tactics in the sequestration game and beyond:

"Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” President Obama said last week, flanked by uniformed firefighters and law-enforcement officers. “Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.” He went on: “Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed.”

Scared yet? In his Saturday radio address, the president made clear who was at fault for this impending Armageddon: “Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the Border Patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?”

The president is obviously going all-out — but not to avoid the $85 billion in spending cuts, known as the sequester, set to kick in on Friday. Obama doesn’t want to make a deal with Republicans. His fear-mongering is part of a concerted plan that extends far beyond the sequester crisis: to obliterate the Republican Party as a viable force in American political life.

His self-righteous rhetoric obscures a bitter truth: Obama is not trying to unite the country. He’s waging a class-based battle for political gain. His goal is to win back the House for Democrats in 2014, giving him a united Congress for his last two years in office and allowing him to pursue the most expansive government in American history.

Listening to Obama, an ordinary American might assume that the Republicans were forcing these harsh spending cuts on the president. In fact, they were the president’s idea, part of a compromise to make the 2011 debt-ceiling deal. And as Bob Woodward reminded readers in an op-ed last on Sunday, that agreement did not include the “new revenue” (i.e., tax hikes) that Obama pretends he asked for then: “When the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts….that was not the deal he made.”

Obama, then, is not being truthful — nor is he making even minimal efforts to find a compromise with Republicans. It actually made news last week when the White House made a few perfunctory calls to GOP leaders.

So here we are again, stuck in America’s ongoing political groundhog day: Obama makes the same claims, with the same results. Republicans dig in, vow no more compromises, then surrender wholesale. Neither side levels with the American people or speaks to their real anxieties — from rising food and gas prices to chronic and pervasive unemployment.

It seems increasingly clear that Obama’s legacy will not be balancing the budget or bringing together a divided country, but rather, expanding the size and scope of government like no one since Lyndon Johnson — but without the revenue or political support that LBJ enjoyed. In 1965 and 1966, when Johnson was at the peak of his power, he passed major legislation with bipartisan support. Still, he overreached, and eventually he lost his huge majorities. Obama’s overreaching is much worse. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, even without Republicans votes.

Two factors fuel his overconfidence: a visionless, disorganized Republican Party, and a docile, shamelessly partisan media.

Republicans lack an agenda and a message. Even when their instincts are correct, they can’t seem to communicate with the American people. With no competing narrative, they continue to take a drubbing in the court of public opinion as “the party of the rich.”

The media, meanwhile, remain determined to protect the president. Only when they found out, belatedly, that Obama played golf with Tiger Woods did they become angry with the White House for not letting them in on the photo op. They are silent about Obama’s failure to address the nation’s fiscal challenges, his stonewalling on Benghazi, or the refusal of his unqualified Defense nominee to release his records. But a secret golf game with Tiger Woods — that’s beyond the pale.[...]

Obama has brought partisanship to a new low by creating a full-time political advocacy organization — Organizing for Action — funded by secret contributions from corporate elites. OFA’s founding is historically unprecedented. No president has ever affiliated himself with a national organization other than reelection campaigns. Obama has taken the Saul Alinsky organizing vision to a national level.

Note: I am not a fan of the Republican Party. They do just as much evil, when they are in charge as the Democrats. But, it's what Obama would do in the face of an even weaker Republican Party that is the problem. The best we can hope for is logjam, to at least slow some of the evil coming out of the place. Smooth sailing for Obama is not a good idea. The more battling between the two groups of criminals, the less time they have to harass the rest of us.

Source:Robert Wenzel

"President Barack Obama discusses the state of the Republican Party and how he feels about their presumptive nominee Donald Trump."

Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

Libertarianism Dot Org: Peter Ferarra: 'Social Security: "The Inherent Contradiction'

Source:Libertarianism Dot Org- with a video featuring Peter Ferrara.

"Peter Ferrara is Director of the International Center for Law and Economics and President of the Virginia Club for Growth. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has practiced law with firms on Wall Street and in Washington, DC.

In this video, Ferrara lectures at a Libertarian Party of New York conference on his first book, Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction (1980). He describes in detail the problems built into the way the U.S. Social Security system was designed and offers a method of transitioning to a fully privatized retirement-savings model." 

From Libertarianism Dot Org

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

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