Minister Malcolm X: The Last Speech

Source:FreeState Now

The fact that Malcolm X that gave this last speech talking about racial equality and individual freedom for everyone, wasn’t the Malcolm X that first came onto the scene in America who did have racial tendencies. Who used racial slurs against Caucasian-Americans, because Malcolm X being the intelligent man that he was got educated about Caucasian-Americans. And no longer saw all Caucasians as racists or what he called ‘white-devils’. 

Malcolm X goes from a smart man as far as intelligence and the ability to learn, but someone who was highly ignorant about the outside world that he grew up in. And not familiar with people outside of his community in the late 1950s and even into the early 1960s . Someone who believe in separation, that African and Caucasian-Americans should live separately. To someone now speaking the message of tolerance and inclusion in the last years of his life.

Mises Daily: Anthony Gregory: The Real Liberal Heritage

Source:FreeState Now

A lot of Americans when they think of Liberalism and Liberals, they probably tend to think of people who believe in a big state in the form of the federal government that collects a lot of taxes. Because these so called Liberals do not trust the states and individuals to make their own decisions wisely. And that the Federal Government would spend those resources better than the states or individuals. And that we need a big state and high taxes to have as just of a society as possible so no American is left behind. 

As a Liberal myself I can tell you there’s nothing liberal in what I just wrote there. But what I just wrote there is what social democratic parties in Europe or the New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Social-Democratic Party, or what Social Democrats in America tend to believe people we tend to call Progressives. Who build their political philosophy around what government can do for the people. Rather than what can the people do for themselves if they just have the opportunity to do so.

A lot of Americans when they tend to think of Liberals, tend to think of MSNBC and its lineup and hosts and guests. Other than maybe Chris Matthews, as a Liberal I do not recognize a single Liberal on that network. Occasionally they’ll have a liberal guest like Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the U.S. Senate. But generally that network tends to showcase people as far to the left as Ralph Nader or Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. 

Current and former Progressive members of Congress and todays so-called progressive-activists. MSNBC represents the Green Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. And in a lot of cases so-called Progressive Democrats who are only in the Democratic Party to have a major voice in a leftist party. But most of the money in the Liberal Democratic Party as you could call it, is raised by and for Liberal Democrats to keep them in power and elect them to office. With Progressives trying to get what’s left.

To actually get to what Liberalism is and why I’m a Liberal. Liberalism is about the individual and protecting the individuals freedom to be able to make their own decisions and choices. Both from an economic and personal point of view. Not putting so many restrictions on them so they can’t make bad decisions at all. Which is what you tend to get from both the Far-Right and Far-Left in America.  

Its not the job of government to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from those who would do us harm which is different. That if you put all of the information out there, people by in large will make the right decisions regarding their own personal and financial lives if we are all educated with all of the good information and facts as possible. Which is why we should subsidize success and freedom and not try to stop people from making bad decisions. Just try to stop and punish people who hurt the innocent.

Liberals are not anti-government, which is what todays Libertarians tend to sound like. But we are also not pro-government, which is what todays Progressives sound like. We have a healthy skepticism of what government can do for us better than what we can do for ourselves. Which is why we want government limited to only doing the things that we need it to do. We even believe that government should help the disadvantage in society. But empower them to be independent and be able to take care of themselves. Rather than making and keeping people dependent on government for their financial well- being.

CBS News: 60 Minute Special: Mike Wallace, Pelican Bay State Prison

Source:FreeState Now

Pelican Bay State Prison houses some of the worst criminals in California. Which means some of the worst in the United States as well when you have cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and other large cities with crime problems. But that doesn’t mean these people should be treated like animals either. And if you look at their solitary confinement unit that is essentially how those inmates are treated locked in a cage twenty-three hours a day or more. 

Inmates with nothing to do all day, but stare at walls, perhaps try to sleep and then be given what is called food. Stuff that you might serve animals instead that doesn’t fill adult men up for the most part without enough to eat. When you treat people like animals especially a violent criminal population that you see in a Pelican Bay, that is exactly what you are going to get animal behavior from people who’ve hurt and killed people in the past. 

Violent felons who won’t hesitate to hurt innocent people again in the future if they feel threatened. Because this is what they know and what they do and haven't been given help to deal with their violent anger. Which is my main problem with Pelican Bay because it makes its violent population even worst. Rather than working to improve the behavior of these inmates.

CATO Institute: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism

Source:FreeState Now 

I would’ve gone farther to bring down healthcare costs with things like preventive care, taxing junk food and drink, getting junk food and drink out of public schools, encouraging people to eat healthy and exercise, mandatory physical education K-12 and other things. And I certainly didn’t like the Medicaid expansion that was in the ACA that wasn’t paid for. And thats what I”m going to blog about.

Medicaid was set up in 1965 as part of the LBJ Great Society. To provide Health Insurance for low-income people who can’t afford it, sounds noble enough right. And that the Federal along with state governments would provide the funds to pay for it, another Federal mandate on the states. One problem with Medicaid has been the Feds haven’t lived up to their share of the costs of Medicaid that they wrote in their own law and as the cost of health care in America has gone up. 

Health care costs have gone up since Medicaid was created in 1965, so has the States Medicaid costs. But the Federal Government, has not only not paid for their share of what they originally said they would pay for, but of course they haven’t been providing the funds to pay for the new Medicaid costs that the states have picked up as well. Which have been made worse the last ten years with state revenue shrinking with a couple of recessions and everything else.

What I would like to do with Medicaid is take it off both the Federal and state budgets. Allow each State to have their own Medicaid as well as healthcare system. And then turn Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit health insurer. With each State having their own version of Medicaid. And make Medicaid self-financed as well by their customers and employers, Unemployed workers would get an additional tax credit to go along with their public assistance check to cover their Medicaid insurance. 

low-income workers would pay for part of their Medicaid insurance. And their employer would cover the other part. And both the workers and employers would be eligible for a tax credit to cover that. And you could pay for that out of corporate welfare. As well as workers and employers could use that tax credit and opt out of Medicaid for private health insurance.

I got this rule that I like to use in life, before you create a new mess, clean up your first mess. Which is how I would describe Medicaid. Its a Financial Mess, that no one wants to pay for. Because the money isn’t there, it has to come out of general revenue. And takes money out of other priorities. So before you expand something like that, you should first fix it.

Los Angeles Times: Healing Medi-Cal

Source:FreeState Now 

A lot of states are swamped in deficit and debt thanks to high unemployment. With a lot less people working and paying taxes as we had four years ago. And instead of working and paying taxes, they are instead consuming more public services. Paid for by less tax revenue, California being a perfect example of this. Medicaid was already set up in the 1960s as an unfunded mandate that has to come out of general revenue. 

Unfunded mandates makes it even harder to pay for Medicaid. And when we have less people working and more poor people in the country Medicaid or Medi-Cal as its called in California becomes even harder to pay for, especially with the Federal Government Continuing to pass down regulations without the funds to pay for them. The way to fix Medicaid not just for California, but every other state, there are a few of ways.  

One let each State have Medicaid to run. Each State would have its own version of Medicaid. Which would help make Medicaid self-financed, that would be paid for by its consumers and their employees. Unemployed workers would get a tax credit provided by the Federal Government to cover their health care costs and employers would get a tax credit from the Feds to cover their Medicaid costs. 

Two instead of even having the states run Medicaid, convert each Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit self-financed health insurer that provides health insurance for low-income people.  And let the States, Feds and locals regulate these health insurers instead. 

Medicaid wasn’t set up to be efficient or cost-effective. But to provide health insurance for people who couldn’t get it any other way. Which it has done for the most part, but it needs to be reformed. To make it cost-effective, especially when budgets are tight for everyone.

Democracy Now: Kevin Phillips- 'On Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics'

Source:Democracy Now interviewing author and political historian Kevin Phillips.

Source:FreeState Now

"With the Republican Party in a state of turmoil following Mitt Romney's loss three weeks ago, we begin today's show with a guest who was once one of the most influential Republican strategists. In 1969 Kevin Phillips wrote the groundbreaking book, "The Emerging Republican Majority." Newsweek described the book as the "political bible of the Nixon administration." After a series of best-selling books on the Bush family, Wall Street and the American theocracy,  Phillips is looking back at the roots of the American Revolution in his new book, "1775: A Good Year for Revolution." "What happened that set the United States in motion in the mid 1770s is still relevant in some ways because what it showed was that you sometimes have to have a lot of very disagreeable politics to make progress. That you don't get anywhere by having all kinds of nice slogans and by trying to barter every difference with a cliche and pretend thats all's well and the United States is in wonderful shape," Phillips says. "The United States is not in wonderful shape and it needs to get back some of that spunk that it had when people were willing to talk very bluntly about harsh and tough measures." 

From Democracy Now

What Democracy Now really wanted to talk to author/historian Kevin Phillips about, was the thing and political strategy that remade the Republican Party to the point that it is today. It was a strategy that was co-authored by Richard Nixon in the mid and late 1960s and by at the time Republican strategist Kevin Phillips. What most people in America know as the Southern Strategy. 

Pre-1968 or so, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center-right, conservative party, with a right-progressive faction in it, led by Nelson Rockefeller and others. The John Birch Society and others who are part of the populist-far-right in America, were Republicans as well back then. But pre-1968, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center right party that's common in Britain and Europe. 

What the Southern Strategy did, was bring in what's called the Christian-Right in America, as well as people who opposed the civil rights and cultural revolution of the 1960s and into the Republican Party. To go along with the Classical Conservatives, people who Republican populists view as elitists and RINOS, into the party as well.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- ‘A Conversation On The Minimum Wage (1980)’

Source:Liberty Pen- this is from Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series.

Source:FreeState Now

“A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen  

“A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. "

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Walter E. Williams participating in this debate.

I’m in favor of a living wage for multiple reasons, but I’ll give you a practical one: if you want to low-income workers to work, instead of staying home and just collecting public assistance, you not only want a minimum wage, but you want low-income and low-skilled workers to not only be able to at least get a minimum wage, but have that wage higher than what they could get if they didn’t work at all.

For practical reasons, we should not only have a living wage, but have what Professor Milton Friedman called a negative income tax or have subsidize employment, where low-income, low-skilled people would not only work, but then get that income matched by the government up to a point, to encourage these folks to work and not stay at home, even if they have kids or other relatives to take care of.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman: ‘A Conversation On The Free Market’

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market, in 1980.

Source:FreeState Now

“From Milton’s award-winning series, “Free To Choose. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

We need to get past the notions of free market and free enterprise, because those things simply do not exist in the developed world as much as Libertarians or economic Libertarians, like to use these terms. What economic Libertarians are talking about things that aren’t real.

Any economic system that is subjected to taxes and regulations which exist everywhere in the developed world, as well as developing world are not part of any free market. What developed nations or developing nations that are developing fast like Brazil or Mexico or China have, as well as the developed world have are private markets and private enterprise.

Private enterprise, is a private economic system run by individuals. But subjected to taxes and regulations by government. To perform government services that individuals consume.

And the difference between free enterprise and private enterprise or private markets and free markets and private enterprise and free enterprise, is that in a private enterprise system like in America or Canada (to use as examples) is that they have private enterprise economic system. Where a lot or most of the economy is in private hands owned by people, not government. Which is a private sector, but these private enterprises are subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

If these countries had free markets and free enterprise, these private companies wouldn’t be subjected to taxes and regulations. Private companies, aren’t free to be bigoted towards their employees, or potential employees, or customers. Or free to pollute the air. They would be in a free market however.

In a true free enterprise system, (and not a made up one) private companies could essentially if not in complete actuality, do whatever they want under law with their companies. Because they wouldn’t have to pay any taxes, or have to deal with regulations, like monopoly laws, because there would essentially be no rules of the road. Because it would be a free market economic system. That is just not the economic system that we have in America, or anywhere else in the developed world.

As much as Ayn Randian’s dream about in their fantasies for that to come about, if you truly believe in a free market and free enterprise, then you would be against things like corporate welfare. And other taxpayer-funded investments in the economy. And let the true free market decide the success’ and failures of private business’s. Why, because you don’t want government involvement in the economy and taking taxpayer money. But many so-called Conservatives, support corporate welfare and don’t even view it as welfare. So let’s stop throwing around labels and terms as if they don’t have any real meaning.

We obviously don’t have a socialist economic system at least in a pure form. And no developed country does. (And thank God for that!) But again no developed country in the world has an economic system where charity and economic assistance, is in complete private hands. Where taxes and regulations don’t exist. Which is a great thing, because if we did we wouldn’t have the national highway system (to use as an example) because that wouldn’t be very profitable for private companies.

David Moon: 'Maryland Juice Asks Attorney General Doug Gansler to Address War on Drugs & Marijuana Arrest Disparities'

Source:David Moon talking to Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler.

Source:FreeState Now

"Maryland Juice blogger David Moon asks Attorney General Doug Gansler to address huge racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates at an August 13, 2013 forum in Montgomery County." 

From David Moon

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler had the perfect answer for David Moon's question. And I'm not talking about the perfect answer in the political sense, where a slick politician gives the right answer to help them politically. I'm talking about the perfect answer in the sense Moon asked a solid question about African-Americans getting arrested more often in Maryland for marijuana offenses, than European-Americans. And Gansler's answer was and this is a paraphrase: 

"If African-Americans are being arrested more simply because law enforcement is targeting them because of their race, or they're from low-income communities, then that would be wrong. But if they're being arrested more because they're more of them in possession with illegal narcotics, as opposed to other people, then there's nothing wrong about that in a racial sense." 

Doug Gansler sounding like a public servant, instead of a politician, which is what we need more in Maryland and I'm sure in the rest of the country as well. 

Democracy Now: 'Civil Rights Pioneer Gloria Richardson, 91, On How Women Were Silenced at 1963 March On Washington'

Source:Democracy Now- Gloria Richardson being interviewed by Amy Goodman.

Source:FreeState Now

"Fifty years ago this week, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, A Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and other civil rights leaders spoke at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. But where were the female civil rights activists? At the historic march, only one woman spoke for just more than a minute -- Daisy Bates of the NAACP. Today we are joined by civil rights pioneer Gloria Richardson, the co-founder of the Cambridge Nonviolent Action Committee in Maryland, which fought to desegregate public institutions like schools and hospitals. While Richardson was on the program for the March on Washington, when she stood to speak she only had a chance to say hello before the microphone was seized." 

From Democracy Now 

I believe the main difference between Malcolm X and Dr. King had to do with different approaches. Dr. King’s approach was slower, because it involved more people, more negotiating and was completely non-violent. But at the end of the day, it was the only one that worked or could work. Otherwise, the members of the movement would’ve been portrayed as thugs, criminals and terrorists by the media. No serious politician, with serious power, would’ve worked with people seen as thugs and criminals. 

Malcolm X’s approach was more combative, that Africans have been in America for three-hundred years and should’ve gotten that freedom three-hundred years ago and “we are mad as hell and want our freedom now”. Which is certainly understandable, but it would’ve never worked, had the members of the movement used violence, even just to defend themselves.

Wayne Dyer: 'The Dangers of Ignorance'

Source:Picture Quotes- Great Wayne Dyer quote 

Source:FreeState Now

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." 

From Picture Quotes

Wayne Dyer's definition of ignorance, sounds like the definition of an asshole to me. The moronic version of the asshole who has a bad habit of speaking out of their ass and talking about things generally in a negative fashion, that they don’t know a damn thing about. 

Theres’s nothing wrong with going off on something that you see as negative and perhaps dangerous, when you’re knowledgable about what you’re talking about. You know the subject or thing is simply bad and you believe that others need to know that so they don’t make mistakes in that area. Smart, educated, people, do that all the time.

It’s the person who claims to an expert on something that they’re going off on when in actuality they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. When the fact is that they know less about whatever they're talking about, then the average auto mechanic, knows about broth brain surgery and corporate law. 

A perfect example would be bigotry like racism where people will hate another race of people simply because of how they look. Or they saw someone from one race do something horrible and immediately assume that every member of that race is just as bad, or a bad person as well. And that is just one example. 

Religion would be another one where the Far-Left will assume all Southern Christians are bigots. And the Far-Right will assume that all Muslims are terrorists, or supporters of terrorists.

People should just get into the habit of speaking to what they know and form their beliefs on that. Not assuming that people they trust and respect knows everything about everything and that can let that person do their thinking for them. Assuming can be dangerous as well. An old teacher of mine once asked me, “why shouldn’t I assume?” And I didn’t have a good answer for him, because I never heard the question before, or even thought about it. He told me, “because it makes an ass out of you and me.” 

People should know things and when you things and have intelligence then you can form your belief system and philosophy. Instead of making snap judgements about something that you saw and assuming that is how everything is.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- Poverty & Equality (1978)

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now

"In response to questions, Professor Friedman explains how capitalism is a more effective approach to the alleviation of poverty than is socialism. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

The fact is, if you live in poverty, you don’t live in freedom, but you live in poverty. If you don’t have the freedom to live your own life and are dependent on others for your economic well-being, whether it is public assistance, or individuals who’ve voluntarily taken care of you, you don’t have the freedom to live your own life. Because you are dependent on others. 

For people who are in poverty to have the freedom to live their own life, they need the tools to escape poverty and live in freedom. I agree with Milton, that people and the private sector do have the responsibility to help people in need be able to get on their own feet and help them pay their bills in the short-term as well.

But where I disagree with Milton, well on a couple of things, actually. Government, is not just buildings, but the people who work in those buildings. And also the people who send those people to the government buildings to work for them. Meaning the voters. 

Where I also disagree with Milton has to do with government and poverty. Government, at least in America, doesn’t have the responsibility to take care of physically and mentally able people who are capable of working full-time. But for whatever the reasons do not have the skills to get themselves the jobs that will allow for them to take care of themselves.

But government, does have a responsibility to see that people who are down first get what they need to help them get by in the short-term. But also to help them get themselves on their own two feet. That comes from economic development in low-income communities. But also education and job training for those people as well, so they can get themselves a good job and get themselves out of poverty all together.

The reason why government has this responsibility, because it is responsible for the country. Not to take care of everyone and manage their lives for them. But to see that everyone has the opportunity to do well in America. So the economy can be as strong as possible. With as many workers as possible, but also as many productive workers as possible, who have what they need to do well in this country. 

Capitalism and private enterprise is a great thing in America. But if you don’t have the skills you need to do well, you’re not going to do well in that system. And for those people government has a role to see that no none goes without. Along with the private sector, especially non-profit charities, but also to see that the resources are available for the people who’ve been left behind can get themselves on their own two feet.

Liberty Underground: Garry Johnson- On Individual Freedom

Source:FreeState Now- Governor Gary Johnson: on individual liberty in America.

Source:FreeState Now

Gary Johnson: "The greatest lie ever told in America is that the battle for our liberty was won in 1776." To try to translate was Governor Johnson is saying here: liberty is hard and you got to want it bad, because there will always be people in America that don't believe in it to the point that they'll try to take it away from you. 

From Guersney Republicans

"Gary Johnson on Sean Hannity"

Source:Liberty Underground- FNC's Sean Hannity, interviewing Governor Gary Johnson, in 2011.

From Liberty Underground

The fight to preserve individual liberty shall always go on. As long as there are statists on the Far-Right and Far-Left in America trying to take our freedom away. Freedom of choice I believe is the best way to look at freedom and I mean individual freedom. 

Should people have the right to make their own decisions over their own personal and economic affairs or not. And if they have the right, should they also be held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad or not. My answer and Gary Johnson’s answers to both questions is of course yes.

The freedom for people to control their own lives and then be held personally responsible for their own decisions over their own lives for good and bad. Not the freedom to hurt innocent people intentionally or otherwise, but the freedom to chart their own course in life. And to have their basic constitutional rights responsibly enforces and enforced equally for everyone. 

The job of government is to protect the innocent from predators who would hurt them. Not to try to run their lives for them and try to protect them from themselves either from a personal or economic standpoint.

That is what Gary Johnson argues and has argued his entire political career at least as long as I’ve heard of him going back to the late 1990s when he was Governor of New Mexico. The ability for free people to make free choices and then be held accountable for the decisions that they make. 

And perhaps where I would disagree with Governor Johnson is that government has a role to educate people on potential choices that they might make. As well as regulate these activities to protect the innocent from predators. Not to run these activities or try to prohibit them. But make sure that they are as safe and as responsible as possible.

Liberty Pen: Martha Burk: ‘The Gender Pay Gap’

Source:Liberty Pen- Martha Burk on the John Stossel Show. 

Source:FreeState Now

“Feminist author Martha Burk (“Cult of Power”), educator Warren Farrell (“Why Men Earn More”) and Sabrina Schaeffer of the Independent Women’s Forum discuss the reasons men are often paid more than women.”

From Liberty Pen

The gender pay gap is only a real issue as far a concern, if men are being paid more simply because they are men. That if employers pay their male employees more money simply, because they are male and not female. Because of course that would be real gender discrimination.

But if men are paid more because they tend to work jobs that pay more than jobs that women tend to work, that of course that is not gender discrimination, but is called capitalism and the private market.

If women were simply being paid less because they were women and employers decided to pay their male employees more than their female employees, then there would be a national scandal. And all sorts of civil rights lawsuits would be filed and it would be all over the news.

Men and women should be paid and generally are for the work that they do. If men and women are literally working the same jobs with the same experience and have been with the company the same period, but the man or woman is doing a better job than the other and gets a bigger raise, or gets a raise while the other doesn’t, then how is that unfair: that is how private enterprise works. People get paid for the work that they do.

It would be anti-business and a bad business practice to pay employees male, or female, just because of their gender. Especially if they are less productive and it would also send a bad message. Because you would be telling the mediocre employee that they can make more money by being mediocre. And telling the productive employee that doing a good or great job won’t make them more money.

CATO Institute: Roger Pilon- ‘The Constitution and the Rule of Law’

Source:CATO Institute- Professor Randy Barnett speaking at CATO about his book.

Source:FreeState Now 

“Following the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration sought to increase federal regulation of private industries through manipulation of the Supreme Court. Speaking to Cato University, Roger Pilon described how this became a pattern that eviscerated the enumerated powers and lead to the modern Executive State.

Video produced by Blair Gwaltney.”

From the CATO Institute 

People especially on the Right like to talk about what’s called American exceptionalism, but what actually makes America exceptional and different even from the rest of developed free world, gets to things like our individualism and diversity, and that we promote our individualism and diversity. And we get our individualism and American exceptionalism thanks to our U.S. Constitution. (That the Far-Left likes to say was written by old white men and therefor out of step with the current times) 

The U.S. Constitution has things like yes the First Amendment, which guarantees our free speech, but also rights like the Second Amendment, the right for us to be able to defend ourselves.

The Fourth Amendment, which is our Right of Privacy as well as well as the Fifth Amendment which guarantees our property rights, so government can’t take our property away without probable cause. 

The Tenth Amendment that limits the power of the Federal Government. So they can’t do whatever they want, but instead their power is limited. 

We are a liberal democracy, which means free adults have the Constitutional Right to live their own lives. And not be interfered by government without Probable Cause. Basically as long as we are not abusing others with what we are doing. 

We are a liberal democracy with probably the most liberal Constitution in the World. We have constitutional rights that other democracies just doesn’t have. Because they are social democracies and less individualistic, that believe one of the roles of government is to take care of their people and even at times protect people from themselves.

Our Constitution might be out of step with others in the World. But that’s because of how free we are, which is what liberal democracies are about. Not because we are doing something wrong.

Sean Hannity: 'Then & Now On The War On Terror'

Source:Media Matters- with a look at Sean Hannity. I can't take the blame on this.

Source:FreeState Now

"Hannity's opinions on NSA surveillance differ depending on who the president is." 

From Media Matters

To try to translate what Sean Hannity is saying here: (even though I wouldn't recommend trying to do that yourself) he was in favor of the so-called War On Terror and the extra surveillance tactics by the Federal Government, before he was against it. An old paraphrase from Senator John Kerry from 2004 over the Iraq War. 

What does being in favor of the War On Terror before Sean Hannity was against it mean? In the 2000s under President George W. Bush, when Hannity would stand inline everyday to try to pay President Bush money to kiss his ass. the WOT was a convenient, partisan, talking point to use against Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats and make them look Un-American and not strong enough to defend America. Now that we have a Progressive Democratic President, the WOT is a convenient, partisan talking point that he can use against the Obama Administration and their supporters and say that the Democrats are in favor of Big Government and Big Brother.

This is just a perfect example of why Sean Hannity is an hypocritical asshole when it comes to the War on Terror. Clear example of the state of the Republican Party right now where they don’t discuss and debate issues like the War on Terror, but simply look for ways to oppose Barack Obama. 

If President Obama came out in favor of flat tax and eliminating the corporate income tax, Republicans would accuse him of supporting a middle class tax hike which is what a flat tax is and being fiscally irresponsible for being against the corporate tax. And the same thing with estate tax, or making English the official language of the United States. If the President supported them on those issues, they would suddenly oppose him.

The War on Terror which before January, 2009 was the Republican Party’s favorite war ever especially with their Neoconservatives, is a perfect example of this. It’s not the War on Terror, or any other issue that hyper-partisan Republicans like Sean Hannity used to publicly support that they’re against. Its Barack Obama that they’re against. 

President Obama  represents everything that the Far-Right in America are against: American diversity, African-Americans coming to power, less power for Caucasian-Americans who use to rule most of the country, young Americans, an economy that works for more Americans and just the wealthy and I could go down the line.

The War on Terror, God’s greatest gift to mankind other than electricity and air conditioning when George W. Bush was President of the United States. But now that Barack Obama is President its big government on the loose, with no one to fight back against it. And we need Congress to step in impeach President Obama in order to stop this. Which is how hyper-partisan Republicans in and outside of the Tea Party look at Barack Obama on really any issue that they at least once agreed with him on. 

Their issues, are their issues and as long as you disagree with them they’re more than happy to defend their issues. But once you agree with them, or try to find common ground they automatically take the other side.

Talking Points Memo: Joe Scarborough: ‘FOX News, MSNBC, Exactly the Same’

Source:Talking Points Memo- Mika Brzezinski & Joe Scarborough.

Source:FreeState Now

“Scarborough: Fox News, MSNBC ‘Exactly The Same'” 

From Talking Points Memo 

Joe Scarborough is right in the sense that MSNBC prime time and Fox News both represent political perspectives in America. They are both mouthpieces for different ideological movements in the country.

Fox News is essentially the official voice for the right-wing in America and MSNBC prime time at least represents a part of the Left in America. I would argue the Far-Left at least with their prime time talk shows. Rather than both being networks for people to go to who are just looking for the news and what is going on in the country and around the world.

CNN represents the mushy middle, people who don’t know what they think and to a certain extent equal balance and they bring on people from both sides. But generally smart, sane people on both sides, people who don’t look like they are on medication from some shrink or need to be or perhaps even need to be committed. Unlike FNC and MSNBC that many times shows you what the nut houses on the Left and Right are thinking. And bring in escaped mental patients to show you those perspectives, or people who should be committed.

I mean if you are someone who is truly interested in news and people who just give you that and then brings in experts who are truly that and know what they are talking about and gives those perspectives based on old fashion things like facts and personal experience, things that might not be considered awesome by today’s young people and hyper-partisans, then CNN is still the best place for that. As well as the network news shows, as well as C-SPAN and perhaps Bloomber

Solitary Watch: Pat Nolan: 'On Prison Fellowships'

Source:Solitary Watch- talking to former prison inmate Pat Nolan.

Source:FreeState Now

"PatNolan Part1"

From Solitary Watch

Former Nixon White House Counsel Chuck Colson, after he got out of prison in I believe the mid 1970s due to Watergate, started a prison fellowship program to prepare prison inmates for life on the outside, both while they are still prison, but for ex-offenders who’ve already been released from prison. Something our prisons should be doing today, but aren’t for the most part. Which is why we have so many ex-offenders who return to prison.

If you operate a prison, then you’re doing it at taxpayer expense. Even if it is a private prison and with tax dollars being so precious and limited, the idea should be to get the best investment possible for those limited tax dollars that for the most part come from hardworking taxpayers. 

So if you’re going to have so many people in prison at the same time, how about give them incentive to improve their lives while in prison. But also so when they get out of prison, which most American inmates do. So they don’t come back to prison again.

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.