ABC News: Terry Moran: Ron Paul Explains a Socialist

Source: ABC News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

Source:The New Democrat

The person who put together this YouTube video, titled it, “Ron Paul Explains a Socialist!” Even though Representative Paul only talked about Socialists in referring to Elizabeth Warren once and for about a minute. To talk about public education infrastructure and labeling Warren as a Socialist, because she supports the collective and all of these public works funded by taxpayers and are government-run. And because of this, I’m really only interested in this interview itself.

Ron Paul, is 2012, running for President in a party that still had a very young and developing conservative libertarian faction in it. And never had a blizzards chance in South Florida of ever winning the Republican nomination for president. Remember, the 2012 presidential race, was between Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney, but we all know why Mitt is called Flip Flopper. And a big government Neoconservative in Rick Santorum. Who spent sixteen years in Congress voting in favor of big government and higher debt and deficits. At least while he was in the Senate and especially after George W. Bush became President in 2001.

2016, can be different for Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul. Who will now have a growing and more mature and bigger conservative libertarian faction behind him. And the opportunity to combine his father’s positions on civil liberties and personal freedom and keeping Federal power in check and even shrinking it. While at the same time develop a national security and foreign policy that doesn’t try to have American policing the world on its own. But doesn’t turn the rest of the world off either. That listens to and works with our allies. A conservative internationalist foreign policy in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Source:ABC News

Tom Woods: James Ostrowski- Progressivism: 'The Idea Destroying America'

Source: Tom Woods- Radio talk show Tom Woods.

Source:The New Democrat

What I’m going to do with this piece, is to layout what progressivism and Progressives are and what they aren’t. I’ll start with what they are not. They aren’t Socialists and Statists, democratic or otherwise. Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and many other Socialists, aren’t Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. They are way to the left of FDR, LBJ and Harry Truman. Progressives, believe in the good of government and even expansionist government.

But Progressives also believe in the limits to what government can do for people. The Socialist, sees government as a director of society. “This is what everyone needs to do well in life. And the primary job of government is to make sure that everyone has what they need to do well in life.” The Progressive, wants everyone to do well in life, sure! But it’s not the job of government to do everything for everybody, or even try to. That people have to have a certain amount of freedom over their own lives. Or the economy will fail, because people will stop being productive.

Progressives, see government more as an insurance system that people can use to empower themselves and live as good as a life as possible. Especially people who need opportunity to do better in life. And that government should be there to do things that we as people can’t do for ourselves or do as well. Infrastructure, national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, regulatory state, to protect the innocent from predators, but not to run the economy. Safety net, for people who are down to help them out, but to also help them get back up.

A lot of today’s so-called Progressives who either have adopted the label, or have had it put on them, really aren’t. Progressives, don’t believe most non-Caucasians in the criminal justice system are innocent. They are not anti-law enforcement, or even anti-military. Under FDR and Truman, Progressives built the national security state. America, became the military and diplomatic power in the world under FDR and Truman. Progressives, are also not conspiracy theory prone. And throw out ideas that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush Administration. To use as an example.

If you really want to learn about progressivism, read up on FDR, Truman, LBJ and read and listen to their speeches. When it came both to economic, foreign and national security policy. Check out Senator Sherrod Brown, perhaps one of the few true of classical Progressives in Congress. Now that the Democratic Party has such a large social democratic wing in Congress, especially in the House. Listen to Senator Brown give a speech on the economy and the importance of the middle class. And things like infrastructure, the importance of manufacturing and small business in America. And you’ll have a pretty good idea of what progressivism really is and how its different from democratic socialism.
Source:Tom Woods

Mises Media: James Ostrowski: The Illiberal Progressive Mind

Source:The New Democrat

James Ostrowski, had the best line in this video, when he said that, “we should stop calling Progressives, Liberals, because they are not.” I would argue that todays so-called Progressives, even people who claim the label, because perhaps they don’t like the word Liberal, because they don’t want to be associated with Center-Left Democrats, or because of how successful right-wingers have made the label seem unpopular in the last fifty years, or perhaps are smart enough to know that they are further left than American Liberals, are not that Progressive either. They believe in progress, but are so government centric that they have more socialist or statist views with their politics.

Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-described Socialist in Congress, is not a Progressive. He’s a Democratic Socialist and proud of that. He even believes in capitalism and private enterprise, but wants government especially the Federal Government to be big enough so that everyone can do well in the private enterprise system. And not just people who were born to wealth.

A true Progressive, believes in progress and that government should be used to improve the lives of everyone and that everyone can succeed. But doesn’t want government so big that the individual becomes dependent on it and stops trying to take care of them self and live in freedom.

The Progressive, believes in things like public education, infrastructure, civil rights, equal rights, a safety net for people who truly need it, but not big enough to manage people’s lives for them. They believe in a big centralized government even, which is what we got from FDR and LBJ. But not to replace the private enterprise system and eliminate certain functions of the private sector. But go hand in hand and have an insurance system for people who don’t have access to a lot of the services that wealthier people can get in the private sector.

The Democratic Socialist, wouldn’t outlaw private enterprise in America. But have the Federal Government takeover basic human services in the country. And not have the private sector involved in them any longer. Things like education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement, banking and energy even. As well as big regulatory state to make sure the private sector is behaving properly and in the interest of the country.

The Progressive, wants everyone to be able to succeed on their own and have access to the tools that they need to make that happen. Government comes in especially for the people who can’t access those resources through the private sector.

The Democratic Socialist, believes the role of government should be there to take care of everyone. That government should be big enough to meet the needs of the people. That certain aspects of society shouldn’t be for-profit at all and can’t be trusted with the private sector. Like the examples that I mentioned before. And that is where government comes in to see that everyone’s needs are met and have a private sector big enough to be able to finance all of this government for the people. This Democratic Socialist ideology, is that ideology that Senator Sanders and his supporters in and outside of the Democratic Party supports.

CBS Sports: NFL 1982-NFC Wildcard-Atlanta Falcons @ Minnesota Vikings: Full Game

Source:CBS Sports with this 1982 NFC Wildcard Playoff between the Atlanta Falcons & Minnesota Vikings, at the Minneapolis Metrodome. Last playoff appearance for both franchises for a long time.

Source:The New Democrat

A very interesting matchup of two pretty different, but pretty good teams in the 82 Falcons and Vikings. The Falcons of the late 1970s and early 1980s, were a power running football team. With a strong offensive line and very good running backs in William Andrews and Lynn Cain and added Gerald Riggs in 1982. That had a good strong-arm quarterback in Steve Bartkowski. Who could go deep to wide receivers Alfred Jackson and Alfred Jenkins. And on defense, they had what was called the Grits Blitz. Very similar to the Chicago Bears 46. But they did it out of a 3-4, but like the Bears would rush and blitz everyone on their defense.

The Vikings, no longer had their dominant Purple People Eater Defense. But they were solid on defense and still had a very good offense. That was now led by quarterback Tommy Kramer instead of Fran Tarkenton. That would throw the ball a lot and throw the ball to everyone with their possession passing Spread Offense. And then could run Ted Brown, Tony Galbreath and Darin Nelson out of the backfield. So this was a matchup of a power football team in the Falcons on both offense and defense. Against a more finesse but tough Vikings team, that could beat anyone in the NFL.

CBS Sports: NFL 1985- Minnesota Vikings @ Chicago Bears: Full Game

Source:CBS Sports with this 1985 Vikings-Bears regular season game at Soldier Field.

Source:The New Democrat

I think at least and I bet a lot of Vikings and Bears fan agree with this, but I believe this is one of the most under appreciated rivalries in the NFL. It is not the Bears-Packers rivalry, or the Vikings-Packers rivalry, but it is at least as good the Packers-Lions rivalry, which use to be a very good rivalry at least. I don’t know if there are two better teams that better represent the old NFC Central, or as ESPN’s Chris Berman called it the NFC Norris Division, play better than the Vikings and Bears. Both teams, are traditionally tough and physical on defense and come right at you on offense. And both teams love to play in cold weather and won a lot of big games in cold weather.

The 1985 Vikings, were a lot different from the traditional Vikings teams that we saw in the 1960s and 70s and the late 1980s. They no longer had the great defense or running game that they could count on. They were a pass first and almost pass all the time team. And the running game they got was from their passing game. And defenses having to respect their passing game a lot. Tommy Kramer, was a very good if not a Pro Bowl quarterback, but not the type of quarterback that could put his team on his back and lead them to championships on his own. He needed a good running game and defense to play their part as well. And the Vikings from 1983-86, missed the NFC Playoffs four straight seasons. Which never happened again until the 2000s. The Vikings missing the playoffs at least four straight seasons. And a big part of that was they no longer had that great defense and running game to complement their powerful passing game.

Teams like the 85 Vikings, played into the Bears 46 Defense perfectly. The Bears were always going after the quarterback with their defensive line and blitzes. And probably blitzed 90% of the time. And if they didn’t have a running game to have to worry about and giving up a big running play on a blitz, it meant they could blitz all the time and attack the quarterback every single play. Remember, the 85 Bears were 18-1 including playoffs and Super Bowl. The only team that beat them in 85 were the Dan Marino Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins had Dan Marino, but they also had a very good offensive line, that could pick up their own man and pick up blitzers on the same play. And they also had 4-5 really good and quick receivers. And could spread the Bears out on defense. And had enough of a running game to keep defenses honest. The Vikings, weren’t that good of a football team.