The American Thinker: Brad Lips: A Populist Libertarian Youth Movement?

Source:The New Democrat

As a member of Gen-X, I see two growing movements in American politics, both anti-big government. On the right, the young libertarians seem to be anti-government all together.  Both young liberals and young libertarians want the freedom to live their own lives and make their own economic and social  decisions without interference from big brother.

The polling data show that young adults are now voting Democratic overwhelmingly but they aren't voting in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.  In a lot of cases, they are voting against Republicans whom they see as intolerant.  They vote for Democrats whom they see as tolerant and liberal on social issues and not seeking to expand the Federal government and raise taxes.  This is a huge opportunity for the Democratic Party to advance Jack Kennedy's vision of an America with economic and personal freedom for all.

The Republican Party also has an opportunity, now, with the young libertarians on the right, if they can ever stop shooting themselves in the foot (or run out of toes) and divorce themselves from the Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives.   It should be easy for them to convince the electorate that they  hate big government and don't want to expand it or raise taxes.  It will be much more difficult for them to convince the electorate that they believe that Americans should have the freedom to manage their own lives.

The capture of the GOP by the right-to-life movement indicates a strong tendency toward theocracy in which the religious principles of a few constrain the behavior of all.  The party seems hell-bent on imposing Christian sharia on America.  To be competitive for the youth vote, the GOP will have to move toward a libertarian philosophy and say, "No," to the Neo-Right.  They could then become a more truly conservative party that would be competitive with the Democrats for young voters.

The future of America is young people who build their own businesses and work for new businesses that look much different from American businesses of the past.  They want the freedom to run their own business and personal affairs.  The Democratic Party and Barack Obama have already figured that out. The Republican Party hasn't gotten the message yet and is still nominating people who can't get elected outside of the Bible Belt and rural America.  They need to get this message and bring in the libertarians, if they want to stay in business.  If they don't, the Democratic Party will end up governing most of the country.

Source:Young Americans For Liberty

Reason Magazine: Kennedy: CPAC Members on Federalism at the CPAC Conference

Source:The New Democrat

There seem to have been some real Federalists at the CPAC conference today, at least the people who were interviewed in this video. Or perhaps Kennedy only interviewed Federalists for this video. But as Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, said, the States are laboratories of democracy and the advantage of having a Federal system of government, unlike in a unitary system, where most of the power rests with the national government, is that you get to see what works in other places and what doesn't work instead of one government trying to figure out what works for the entire country, especially a huge country like the United States.

Mises Daily: Gary Galles: 'Labor Unions & Freedom of Association'

Source:Mises Daily- talking about organized labor.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Mandatory union membership and mandatory dues imposed on those who do not want to join are again at issue. On the heels of contentious “right to work” disputes in several states, the Supreme Court has recently heard arguments challenging an Illinois mandate requiring home health care workers to pay representation fees to a union they did not want. That case, Harris v. Quinn, has the potential to even challenge the Court’s 1977 Aboud precedent upholding mandatory union dues for public sector workers. Such a result would be a victory for liberty.

Unions and their allies in Harris v. Quinn reiterate the claim, accepted in Aboud, that “union security” rules are needed to prevent workers from unfairly opting out of paying for union services. But that claim, which portrays the issue as defending the property, contract, and freedom of association rights of unions (to be paid for services rendered to workers they represent), intentionally misrepresents the core issue, which is the liberty of workers and employers.

“Union security” rules are clear violations of the liberty of workers’ and employers’ freedom to not be forced to associate with certain groups against their will, a freedom unions ironically steamroll in the name of freedom of association, asserted only for themselves, despite its inconsistency with freedom of association for all. Consequently, unions must find a legitimate sounding way of defending the coercion involved. That is where the free-rider argument comes in, which frames the issue as protecting legitimate rights, rather than the illegitimate use of government-granted coercive powers to impose employment terms violating government’s primary role: protecting individual rights." 

You can read the rest of this article at Mises Daily. 

"Mulhall v. Unite Here decision will have a profound effect on employer neutrality, a union's ability to reach employees, and whether a union will be recognized by the employer during labor negotiations." 

Source:The Real News Network- and organized labor.

From the so-called Real News Network  

Here's a perfect example of why I love being a Liberal. It is the perfect belief system for laying out the best plan in the fairest and most balanced way that protects everyone's freedoms. It is also a label under which so-called free market economic Libertarians, and pro-big labor Socialists should be able to find common ground when it comes to Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Organize, which give all workers the freedom of choice they deserve and need.

There are people, let's say, on the far-left who do not so much believe in the Right to Organize but would like to see it mandated, and all work places, both private and public, unionized, requiring union membership of all workers, with a non-participation penalty of paying union dues whether or not they are members. Then you have the so-called Libertarian-Right, which demands that unions be abolished and the market (meaning employers) decide what all workers get paid. They also would eliminate most, if not all, regulations, including the minimum wage.

But if you are an actual Progressive and not just someone who calls yourself a Progressive, then the Right to Organize is real, meaning that it should be a right and not a mandate for workers to join or not join a union.  

If you are a real Libertarian and not just someone who calls yourself a Libertarian or a Conservative Libertarian, you don't want government power or corporate or business power deciding for individuals whether they should sign up for a union because you believe in the individual and freedom of choice and not government or employers making these decisions for the individual instead.

Now here is where the common ground can be found for actual Progressives and Libertarians, that is, let the workers decide for themselves whether to sign up for a union and let people unionize if they want but then have the union earn its union membership and members, including dues, and not let them be automatically rewarded just because they are a union. 

And if workers do not sign up for the union, then they do not pay union dues and do not get the benefits of being union members.  They work as free agents, negotiating their own wages and benefits. Both sides win. Big government and big business get out of the way.  Individuals decide for themselves.

CBS Sports: NFL 1989-Preseason Opener: Dallas Cowboys @ San Diego Chargers: Intro

Source:The New Democrat

I am not so much interested in Troy Aikman's first NFL pass, since it was in a preseason game and technically didn't count. What I am interested in is Pat Summerall's intro to this game, because he was the master of that, with his great voice, knowledge of the game, and pure intelligence. He not only could have written his own intros, but he also had a great sense of humor. Then combine him with John Madden, the greatest NFL analyst you've ever seen, and you have a Hall of Fame duo.

Washington Free Beacon: Elizabeth Harrington: Tea Party Celebrates Five-Year Anniversary

Source:The New Democrat

To talk and think about the Tea Party, you have to know the state of the Republican Party in late 2008 and early 2009, when they were basically shut out of power at the Federal level, facing a new Democratic President with Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress, both House and Senate. To speak positively about the Tea Party for a minute, they were the energy that a badly damaged Republican Party, thanks to the Bush/Cheney Administration, needed to wake up and get back into the fight, not only with issues but also with rhetoric and an agenda to take on Obama Democrats.

To be real about it, we would probably be looking at not only a Democratic administration but probably also a Democratic Congress in both chambers right now, with Democrats still controlling a majority of governorships and legislatures, because the GOP was in debt. However, the corporate-funded Tea Party groups gave the GOP the resources that it needed to get back in the game politically and put many races that wouldn't have been competitive otherwise in play for Republicans to not only take on Democratic incumbents but also to beat them and beat them handily.

The Super Bowl for the Tea Party was November 2010 election day, when the GOP won back the House of Representatives with 62 seats but didn't win back the Senate because of their oddball Tea Party candidates, to put it lightly. It picked up six seats in the Senate, giving Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a large minority to be able to obstruct the hell out of Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration and gave the Republican Party a majority of governorships and state legislatures.

That is really where the story ends positively for the Tea Party and the broader Republican Party because the Tea Party is not representative of America as a whole, coming primarily from the South and rural America and older Anglo-Protestant stock in a country that is diverse racially and ethnically and becoming more diverse every day, where many of these Americans see the Democratic Party as diverse and tolerant, unlike the GOP.

In 2012 the Tea Party was a negative factor and, if anything, held them down as badly as President George W. Bush held them down in 2006 and in 2008, even though the GOP was able to hold onto the House. President Obama was reelected in an Electoral College landslide and again because of the Tea Party and some of their oddball candidates (Todd Akin comes to mind) pretty quickly trying to run statewide in swing States, Senate Democrats not only held onto the Senate with vulnerable incumbents, but picked up two seats as well.

We still have the 2014 mid-terms, but we are already seeing establishment Republicans now not afraid to take on the GOP, like Governor Jan Brewer in Arizona or former Tea Party candidates like Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey.  This suggests that the strength of the Tea Party peaked in 2010 and since the fall of 2011, they've been sliding, with 2012 almost a wasted election for the Republican Party, an election they should have won easily. We are seeing the adults in the Republican Party take over, charting a new course for the GOP. 

FOX Sports: Beyond the Glory Mike Tyson

Source:The New Democrat

Mike Tyson was the most devastating and intimidating force in boxing for about five years from some point in 1985 to 1990 and I could end the story right there because that pretty much sums up his career. Oh wait, you want the rest of the story.  A man who was the most devastating and intimidating force in boxing for five years, who was undisputed World Heavyweight Champion during that time is not good enough for you. You actually want more than that?

That was really the only productive part of his career.  He was not only champion but was also winning  fights against major contenders. For the rest of his career, he was either in prison, beating fighters who had no business fighting him, or losing to simply better fighters like Evander Holyfield, twice, and Lennox Lewis.

But the five-year run that he did have was one of the most impressive careers any boxer had.  Not just because of the fights he won and how long he was undisputed World Heavyweight Champion but also because of how he won the fights, the title, and how he defended it against the best.  It is not his fault that he fought in a relatively weak era.