The O'Reilly Factor: Bill O'Reilly VS Ethan Nadelmann On Marijuana

Source:FOX News- Ethan Nadelmann debating The O'Reilly Finger.

Source:FreeState Now

"Bill 'o Reilly Gets Owned on The Drug War" 

From Streamed Devito 32

A little free advice that's actually worth a lot more than nothing for you drug warriors: when you acknowledge the problems with legalized alcohol and talking about marijuana legalization and you saying something like: "We do we want to just add to the drug problem in America by legalizing marijuana as well?" you are losing the debate. Which is what Bill O'Reilly did on his own show when talking to Ethan Nadelmann. 

This is not about whether marijuana is good or bad for you. This is not about whether alcohol is good or bad for you, or tobacco, or any other narcotic drug in America. This is about whether consensual adults should be in jail, simply for what they do to themselves. 

Don't give me the you are against big government propaganda, except as is relates to what drugs people take, because you are obviously not against big government, when you are in favor of arresting people and putting them in prison, simply for what they do to themselves. 

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman: ‘The Free Lunch Myth’

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now

“Milton Friedman explodes the myth that government can provide goods and services at no one’s expense. Full video available for purchase at:Idea Channel. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen 

The fact is there is no free lunch from government. Even if you are technically receiving services for free like in public assistance, that is for anyone working and gets paid to work, because anyone who works pays taxes to finance some government service. We just pay for these services in taxes, and not paying for them out-of-pocket, or with a credit card at a store. Or buying those products online.

Anytime you hear a politician, or political candidate say that they can give you this service for free, or that government should provide these services for free, ask them how much it will cost you:

The politician will probably say the government services that they’re proposing will be probably free for you. But then you should say: “If this service will be free, how is it paid for?” And they’ll say from this tax, or that tax, or creating a new tax. And then you should say directly and not as a question: “So this service won’t be free, because I’ll be paying for it in new taxes, or a new tax increase. Or this service will be cut to pay for this new service.” And the politician, or candidate might still say: “No. You’re not going to pay for this new program in taxes. Business’s will, or wealthy people will.”

Well, the politician will still be wrong. Because every time you increase the cost of doing business, the consumers end up paying for that new cost. Business’s, are for-profit and aren’t patriotic enough generally to say: “Look, we know our government needs to do this and we’ll be happy to pay for it ourselves.” So, you increases taxes on business’s and the consumer will end pay for that new tax increase, or at least part of it.

Minister Malcolm X: ‘After Return From Mecca, Hajj (1964)

Source:D Jamal Uddin- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X in 1964.

Source:Real Life Journal

“This is the first video of the Hajj uploaded on to youtube many years ago from Arnold Perl’s documentary.

Malcolm X was assassinated 50 years ago this month (February 21st 1965). He would have been almost 90 years old. But he left us when his time was due. A fearless, courageous and sincere man who will never be forgotten by those who stand with the oppressed.

We will remember him today as we did yesterday as our beloved brother.

We remember him and appreciate the sacrifices he made for not only the African Americans but all people across the world. May God grant him mercy and the highest station in paradise. Ameen.

Press conference on Malcolm X’s Views on Race issues in America upon returning from Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Views of Malcom X after Mecca i.e Sunni Islam. Original video showing the evolved Malcolm X”

From D Jamal Uddin

Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, in New York City in 1965, after returning from his trip from Saudi Arabia. He was a different man when he came back from Saudi Arabia at this point. He was so longer arguing for the separation of the races in America, but instead for an America where everyone could live in freedom and even live with each other.

Source:Real Life Journal- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X in 1964.

This is part of the brilliance of Malcolm X which was his downright honesty and ability to tell the truth. That you can’t talk about racism around the world and leave the United States the number one superpower in the world and number one economic power in the world, out of the discussion.

Malcolm X, was saying that you can’t leave America out of the human rights debate, when they were denying ten-percent or more of their population their human rights. The right to be treated equally under law. No better, or worst and not be denied their constitutional and human rights simply because of their race.

Malcolm X, was brilliant to at least show he was willing to take the issues and problems with American racism and race relations to the United Nations, even if they are just a debating society to let the world know about the problems with the African-American community.

As President John Kennedy said: “The question a hundred years later, is whether the world will exist half slave, or half free.” He was talking about the lack of freedom and human rights abuses, as well as oppression around the world. But he also brought that into the civil rights debate in 1963. Will America a hundred years later be a country where 10-12% of the country are essentially still slaves, without the freedom to control their own lives, because they aren’t allowed to go to the good schools and get the good jobs, because they are being denied those things through government force and oppression, simply because of their race. This was the debate back in the 1960s: can Americans be denied their basic constitutional and human rights simply because of their race.

What Malcolm X, was arguing in this press conference, was you can’t talk about human rights and abuses around the world and ignore the human rights abuses in your own country. He wanted the world to know about the human rights abuses and oppression in his own country.

The best way for a large country, even a superpower like America, to encourage good behavior around the world, is to practice that behavior in your own country. The United States, gained a lot of credibility and became a lot more powerful as a superpower in the 1970s and ever since, because of the civil rights movement, debate and acts of the 1960s. It told the world that we were going to practice what we preach. And no longer hold ourselves to a lower standard than how we expect the rest of the world to behave.

Emma Goldman: 'The Individual, Society and The State'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- talking about Anarchist Emma Goldman.

Source:FreeState Now

"Emma Goldman discusses the nature of the state as an institution and how it is fundamentally at odds with the dignity of the individual.

The minds of men are in confusion, for the very foundations of our civilization seem to be tottering. People are losing faith in the existing institutions, and the more intelligent realize that capitalist industrialism is defeating the very purpose it is supposed to serve.

The world is at a loss for a way out. Parliamentarism and democracy are on the decline. Salvation is being sought in Fascism and other forms of “strong” government.

The struggle of opposing ideas now going on in the world involves social problems urgently demanding a solution. The welfare of the individual and the fate of human society depend on the right answer to those questions The crisis, unemployment, war, disarmament, international relations, etc., are among those problems.

The State, government with its functions and powers, is now the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship—monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian—the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today?

In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?" 

From Libertarianism.Org

What I at least see from this piece at Libertarianism.Org, is a lot of analysis, but what the writer views as problems with American government and other western government's, specifically parliamentary forms of government, social democratic forms of government that are common Europe and in the rest of the developed world. But you don't see any alternative here to the American, federal, liberal democratic, form of government. 

In the 1940s and 50s, left-wing Americans were terrified about being outed as Communists and even Socialists. You are now thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders and other left-wing members of Congress, seeing more American leftists come out as Democratic Socialists, if not Socialists all together. But today it's right-wing Anarchists on the Right, who at least publicly seem to having a hard time admitting to their anarchism, coming out of their political closet. 

If you are not an Anarchist, (right or left) then what you want government to do?

What are you willing to pay for the government that you think your country needs and how would those fees or taxes be set up, what levels, etc? 

These are my questions for anyone who calls themself a Libertarian, but doesn't seem to have any role for government whatsoever. At least no role that they're willing ti pay for themself.

Videoholic Ultimate: 'The Fall of Communism (1991)'

Source:Videoholic Ultimate- from a CNN report about the fall of the Soviet Union in Russia.

"From late 1991, here is news about the Crisis in the Soviet Union and the eventual fall of Communism.  This is part 1 of 6." 

From Videoholic The Ultimate 

This is really about the fall of communism in Russia, with the Soviet Union collapsing in Moscow and in other places in Russia, with several Russian republics breaking away from Russia, like Ukraine and the Baltic States, as well as in the Caucus's, as well as Belarus. 

Communism as a political philosophy is still alive and even well, if you look at the People's Republic of China, with the Communist Party able to stay in complete control of the Chinese Government. But communism as a political philosophy, whether it's still alive and well, or on political life support, is still around. Even in Latin America like Cuba and Venezuela, or Central America, where you still have hard corse Socialists there trying to get into power in those government's. 

The reason why communism failed in Russia, has to do with the 45 year Cold War that America and Europe fought against the Soviet Union. As well as President Mikhail Gorbechev gradually opening up Russian society to the outside world and lifting harsh restrictions for the Russian people when it came to personal and economic freedom. And giving the Russian people a little taste of individual freedom, with them deciding they wanted a lot more of it.