Brook Siliva-Braga: Ron Paul: 'Democrats & Republicans Are Dinosaurs

Source:Ron Paul- Brook Silva-Braga, I believe interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul, back in 2008.

"Ron Paul: Republican and Democrats are dinosaurs"

Source: Ron Paul 

I at least borderline hate the two-party system and this is coming from a let's say Independent Democrat, whose only a Democrat because Democrats tend to believe in progress and pluralism. And I'll be a Democrat, as long as the Far-Left of the party (Democratic Socialists and Neo-Communists) don't take over the party. 

But I think I agree with Ron Paul, at least to this extent and perhaps would put it differently. The two-party system in America is a dinosaur. We simply have two main parties, but in name only. We have a Democratic Party that not just represents the Center-Left (the real Progressives) in America, but the Far-Left (the Socialists) and parts of the Center-Right (the Classical Liberals) who are not Republicans because of the Christian-Right. 

And then we have a Republican Party that use to at least represent the Center-Right in America (Classical Conservatives and Right-Progressives) but now they represent the Far-Right (Nationalist-Populists and Christian-Theocrats) and certain extent Libertarians. So we have maybe 5 different parties in America, at least ideologically, but we really only have two main political parties. And that needs to change, if we're ever going to have a functioning political system, that can govern the country again and isn't thrown out every two years.

Ryan McMaken: 'David Brooks: The Conservative Future Is the Same as Its Past'

Source:Mises- editor Ryan McMaken.

"Recently by Ryan McMaken: 3 Myths About Secession

The first thing you’ll notice about this piece by David Brooks about the future of the Conservative movement is how boring it is. The second thing you’ll notice is that it is just re-hashing to same old story about the conservative movement. "Here are the new young guns of the movement!" At least this time the usual obligatory references to the latest batch of young neocons was preceded by a few lines about the conservatives at The American Conservative, who aren’t so bad.

But most of the article is just the usual list of younger neocons in the Romney mould who promise to never ever upset anyone’s apple cart, and ensure that the status quo endures forever and ever until the sun burns out. Ramesh Ponnoru? He wants "family-friendly tax credits." Yep, that’ll fix things. Tyler Cowen? He’s not even a conservative, but is definitely in favor of the status quo. One of the publications Brooks mentions is in favor of "a big agenda of institutional modernization" which of course means a mild tweaking of the status quo.

"Innovation." "Reducing inequality." "Burkeans." If you just arrived here out of a time warp from 1986, you’ll definitely find all this to be very cutting edge stuff. The Conservative movement is really barreling toward grappling with the tough realities of the coming bankruptcy and default.

Brooks of course, doesn’t mention Ron Paul even once, in spite of mentioning libertarians at least twice. And when he goes through what he thinks are the important issues of our day, he doesn’t mention the words "debt," "dollar," or "inflation" once.

Looking at Brooks and the New York Times columnists, I feel like I’m reading memos going back and forth between Louis XVI and his most sycophantic courtiers. "No need to bother about those middle classes and peasants out there. We’ve got the bright new thinkers here in Versailles. Everything will be fine!" 

You can read the rest of Ryan McMaken's piece at Lew Rockwell.

Ron Paul: '5 Greatest Dangers to a Free Society'

Source:Twitter- U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Recently by Ron Paul: Bombing the Gaza Prison Camp

This is an excerpt from Ron’s Farewell to Congress address which was given on November 15, 2012.

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of "blow-back" is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns." 

From Lew Rockwell

Professor Milton Friedman: The Power of Choice

Source:Idea Channel- Economics Professor Milton Friedman in 1979 or 80.

"An excerpt from the biography of Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman."

Source:Idea Channel

The power of choice is a huge power and the most important and powerful tool we have as people no matter where we live in the world. Whether we live in a liberal democracy like America or social democracies like in Canada, Europe, Australia, or the democracies in Asia, or whether we live in authoritarian states. 

The power of choice is the most important power we have as people and in a way the only power we have as individuals. Because without it, we don't have any other powers as people, because choice it powers everything. We do as people and it's always there for us as well, as long we have power over our minds and bodies we have choice. 

In a free society some people will always have more than others, but we always have choice as long as we control our minds and bodies. Power of choice is the power to make good decisions or the power to make bad decisions. And with every decision we make as people, there are consequences that come from the choices that we make good and bad.

There's no such thing as a socialist utopia or paradise. There may be some countries that are closer to this vision than others, but that's exactly what it is. A vision of what life would be like if everything is perfect. So it's not a question of whether have have a perfect society, or not but what's the best society that we can build for ourselves that's better than all of the alternatives. 

Myself as a Liberal Democrat (meaning someone who believes in liberal democracy) that society would be a society where the power of choice is running rampant, where individuals have the power to govern themselves, as long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Which is what liberal democracy is about. 

As a Liberal and as an individualist, I believe in personal freedom, responsibility, and education. The ability for people to get a good education and then use that power to make the best decisions for themselves and the people that are dependent on them. And then be held accountable for all of their decisions for good and bad. And these are the values that Professor Milton Friedman also believed in.

Reuters: 'Grover Norquist Predicts 2-Year Extension of All Bush Era Tax Cuts'

Source:Reuters- Read Grover Norquist's lips: "No, new, taxes!"

"Norquist predicts 2 year extension of all Bush era tax cuts"

From Fishing For WNs

Grover Norquist predicting that President Obama and Congress will once again punt on the Bush tax cuts and to give them another two-year extension. 

It's time for the Washington to stop playing football on the Bush tax cuts and show some leadership. Of course thats easier said than done but if. They can just come to an agreement on tax reform, that in the short-term we would eliminate most if not all tax loopholes and even reform things like the Home Mortgage Deduction, that it wouldn't apply to homes worth more than a million dollars. 

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- Adequate Housing

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about affordable housing in 1978,

"Professor Friedman is asked what policies he would propose to ensure adequate housing for the poor.  Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Asking Milton Friedman the question what would be a good policy that would achieve adequate housing for the poor, is the wrong question to ask Professor Friedman. Because he didn't see government's role to provide the poor an adequate living. What he supported was creating a system that would work for everyone and empower more people to make as good of a life as possible for them self so we wouldn't have so many poor people in this country. So a better question to ask Professor Friedman would be something to the effect, of what would be the best policies or system that would empower as many people to be successful in life, so we wouldn't have as many poor people in this country. Because of all the new opportunity that would be created. With all of these Americans able to get a good education that allows them to be successful in life. So they don't have to live off of public assistance, whether it's public housing, or a combination of public assistance programs. That would've been a proper question to ask Professor Friedman.

Reason Magazine: Auburn U. Professor Roderick Long- On Race, Gender, Equality and Libertarianism

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source: Reason Magazine: Auburn Professor Roderick Long- On Gender, Equality & Libertarianism

I tend to have a lot of respect for libertarianism especially when it comes to individual freedom and non-aggression. Where I differ with Libertarians as a Liberal when it comes to non-aggression, like take discrimination, a big part of this video. Is when people are discriminated against for something that has nothing to do with what they are being denied for.

Like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality what have you, is that as a Liberal I believe that people have the right to legal recourse that there should be a sufficient consequence for Joe discriminating against Susan or vice versa based on gender or whatever reason that has nothing to do with whether Joe or Susan or whoever it may be. And Libertarians say so Joe and Susan or whoever it may be shouldn't have that right. Because that would violate Joe or Susan's property rights to decide who can and can't work for them or whatever reason they are being denied to do, serving them in a cafe or whatever it may be. Libertarians believe that Joe and Susan or whoever have the constitutional right to not serve or hire people based on race or gender, because its their property.

Civil rights are just one example of where Liberals and Libertarians disagree. Classical Liberals believe that and again I just consider myself a Liberal but for this purpose I say Classical Liberal because I don't want to be mistaken for a Social Democrat who puts equality over everything else, including freedom. But Classical Liberals and Libertarians also believe in individual freedom, that individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. As long we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. But guess what so do Libertarians. They believe in the same thing, so they should believe in civil rights as well but they don't, when they believe it infringes on property rights, something they value more.

ReutersTV: Rough Cuts: Israel Pounds Gaza, Troops Mass at Border

Hopefully Israel beating the hell out of Hamas rather then innocent Palestinians

Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb 1994- Milton Friedman, Personally Speaking in 1994

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman, on CSPAN's Booknotes with Brian Lamb in 1994 

Source: Liberty Pen-C-SPAN: Brian Lamb- Milton Friedman Personally Speaking in 1994

One of the things I like and respect about Milton Friedman's history and politics, is that his history and life story has shaped his libertarian politics and how he looks at the world. That he came from practically nothing or very little. And worked his way up by earning a college scholarship from Rutgers University and working his way up in life that way. Which I believe is a big reason why's he's been so against welfare and the welfare state. At least to the extent that it's there to take care of people because with Dr. Friedman's life, he wasn't raised on public assistance. And didn't live his life off of public assistance, but he showed that people could make it in life on their own. Even if they come from very little and make something out of their lives, if they are just given the opportunity to do so. Which is a classical liberal idea, not Libertarian but classical liberal idea. An economic Liberal idea that people who even come from very little in life if they are just given the opportunity to do so.

What separates Liberals such as myself from Classical Libertarians, is that Liberals believe that government can play a role through scholarships and grants to empowering people in need. Especially kids who come from rough beginnings. Who work hard and are qualified to go to a good college and even adults who've made mistakes early on in life. But just need an opportunity and empowerment to be successful if life and then they'll be able to do that as well. The 1996 Welfare to Work law being a perfect example of that. Economic liberalism is not about telling people what to do and how to live their lives and telling people how much they can make and punishing economic success through high taxation.Which is essentially what democratic socialism or social democracy is.  Or is it about getting government completely out of the economy. Which is what Libertarians tend to believe. But economic liberalism is about seeing that everyone can do well in life. And empowering people at the bottom to be able to advance on their own through economic opportunity.

I agree with Milton Friedman that if we're going to have a public safety net and I believe in a public safety net, but Professor Friedman would probably say, "if we're going to have a public safety net, then it needs to be designed to empower people in need to be able to move up in life. And that is should encourage work and independence and be temporary for people who only need it. But everyone else who can should be able to take care of themselves and support themselves from their own hard-earned income." I'm not even paraphrasing Professor Friedman here, but that is what he essentially believed with his proposed Negative Income Tax and support for Welfare to Work in the 1990s. Liberals believe that government should be an insurance system and a referee for the economy. Not the director and have something top-down centralized big government welfare state. But to protect consumer and workers from predators. And help people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system and help them get back up.

Lew RockWell Blog: A United Europe? by Alexander Jousse

A United Europe? by Alexander Jousse

This idea that a United Europe could come together and form some new super Federal Republic, perhaps going. As far as Portugal in the West to Italy in Eest and perhaps South Ireland in the Northwest to Germany or Poland in the Northeast. Has been thrown around several times especially in the last fifteen years since they started the European currency and the European Central Bank. Especially with China on the rise across the board, as well as India and Brazil and with Russia back on the rise, Europeans have. Been wondering how do they with twenty seven or so fairly small Federal Republics compared with those. Huge countries that I just named, how would they be able to compete with not only America and Japan in the future. But with China, India, Brazil, Russia and even Mexico in the future and if Europe East of Eurasia were to become. One United Federal Republic, you would be talking about a country of 350-400M people, with perhaps an economy as big or larger then the United States.

Personally as far landmass and population, politics and culturally, racially and ethnically and everything else. Where a United Europe would essentially be dominated by Caucasians as far as in numbers but very diverse ethnically. With Germans, Italians, French and may others living in this country, there would be some cultural differences, as well as linguistic differences. But America and Canada have that and have functioned very well and if Europe could overcome this, Europe would become a superstate that could compete. With anyone in the World, economically, politically, militarily and everything else, it would be country that. Foreigners would want to visit and even immigrate to in the long term short term they are two messed up economically but long term this would be an option to look at.

Self-Ownership: John Stossel Show- Gary Johnson's Future in Politics

As a political outsider when it comes to the libertarian movement, I would like to see Gary Johnson Left-Libertarians/Social Liberals, take over the Republican Party or bring those people go over to the Libertarian Party. Along with having universal polling so all the third-party candidates get polled and universal ballot access. And at least get the third-party candidates in their own national TV debates. Even if they don't go up against the Democrats and Republicans directly. Which would not only save our two-party system, but expand it and keep up from going to a one-party system. With the Democratic Party having all the power. Because the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, destroyed the Republican Party.

Maybe we would see the Gary Johnson. Liberal or Left-Libertarians merge with the Ron Paul classical Libertarians and either takeover today's GOP and run the Neoconservatives out of the party. Or at least out of leadership and run that party, even merge with what's ever left of the classical conservative movement. The Goldwater/Reagan coalition in the Republican party and make the GOP a real Conservative Republican party. Which is what they aren't right now. There are millions of Americans who love both economic and personal freedom, but who aren't anti-government. They just don't want government running their lives for them and just do the basics. Including a safety net for people who truly need it, as well as law enforcement, national security and foreign policy. But these voters don't have two major parties right now who speak for them.

The other option for Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, would be to combine their factions and both go over to the Libertarian party to build that party up for the long-term that would allow that party to be a strong enough third-party. And win some elections, some seats in some state legislatures, a governorship here or there, local council seats. And even win a few seats in Congress, and some House seats here, perhaps some Senate seats over here. But that would have to be a long-term strategy. Short-term they would be better off taking over and occupying the GOP. If Gary Johnson was simply polled like President Obama and Governor Romney were during this election, he might have been at 15-20 percent. Because again he speaks for millions of Americans who aren't looking to eliminate government. But get it back to doing only what we need it to do.

Big Government: John Galt: "Price Gouging?" NJ Governor Chris Christie is Already Talking About Raising Taxes to Pay For Hurricane Sandy

Price gouging? Chris Christie is already talking about raising taxes to pay for Hurricane Sandy

The more I learn about Chris Christie is the more different he is from the Tea Party, he's sane for one and he's also a Governor. And public official who puts doing his job and his people over whatever partisan political philosophy and movement. That he might be subscribed to, he just got hit with perhaps the worst hurricane in the history of the Northeast and in October at all times. When the weather in New Jersey is starting to get cold, this was not one of those late summer hurricanes that we see in the Southeast. When the weather is still hot and humid but in the Northeast in October when the weather is starting to get cold. He got with and teamed up with President Obama simply because he needed his help and put his state over his party and. Whatever political movement that he might be part of right now and because of all the damage and because of. How both New Jersey and the Federal Government are scrapped as far as cash right now, is considering doing. Something he normally wouldn't do, which is to raise taxes to pay for the cleanup of Hurricane Sandy.

The whole Hurricane Sandy episode that the Northeast the is still experiencing and having to deal with rather. Then watch it on TV like the rest of the country, does bring up a couple questions that needs to be answered in the future. Especially with the situation of the economy, debt and deficit, whose best to deal with disasters like this and how do we fund it in a way that can prevent us from having to put the money. On the national debt to pay for in the future, so do we need a National Disaster Fund to pay for these cleanups that. Could be run by the states with the resources to pay for it and do we need some type of Disaster Insurance System. To help property owners who watch their properties get wiped out when a disaster like this happens, that again could be run by the states as well. Not talking about new Big Government Federal programs but things the states could run by themselves.

ReutersTV: Rough Cuts Death Toll Mounts as Israelis and Palestinians Exchange Gunfire

No such thing as peace in Israel and Palestine right now

Los Angeles Times: Dying for Relief: More People Dying From Prescription Drugs Overdoses Then Cocaine or Heroin

And yet prescription drugs are legal in America. Just more evidence of how stupid the War on Drugs is.

Ron Paul: "Secession Is an American Principle"

Source: Ron Paul-

Source: Ron Paul: Secession Is An American Principle

If these nutty right wingers, far-right wingers who haven't gotten the memo that it's no longer the 1950s and the United States is a much different country now, then let then secede and take the poor Bible Belt states with them. And they won't have to live  with different people and different lifestyles and cultures of so-forth. With people who are more openminded about how Americans should live and what it means to be an American. Instead of this narrow-minded view of what it means to be an American. Because this is exactly what it is, old Americans trying to continue to fight a culture war with new Americans. People who grew up in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s, people who view people as people and don't see people who aren't exactly like them as Un-American. Tolerant of different people, lifestyles and cultures. This whole succession debate is about the fact that we now have an African-American President who was reelected last Tuesday. And these far-right Neo-Confederates not being able to deal with that fact.

If Neo-Confederates want to secede from the union, by all means good riddance! We already have way too many ignorant Americans in this country, but they are going to have to leave their states in the country, because the overwhelming majority of the country wants to remain American. And remain a part of the United States. Where all Americans no matter, their racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and national background have an opportunity to succeed in this country. This is not the Euro States of America, or the Caucasian States of America, or even the Anglo States of America, for the nationalist Far-Right who don't even like non-English Americans, even the Irish, because they're Catholic and don't like Southern Europeans, because they have olive skin and are Catholic, or Jews and Slavs, because they have different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and practice different religions than the Southern Baptists. This is the United States of America where everyone is welcomed, as long as they're productive, responsible and obey rule of law. 

Los Angeles Times: U.S. Moving Toward Energy Independence, Report Says

Isn't President Obama suppose to be anti American energy and yet during his administration we are headed. Towards energy independence, with our ability to produce oil, gas, including natural gas, coal, nuclear and ethanol. As well as all the renewable energy sources and clean energy we are going to be able to produce within 10-20 years. Which will mean millions of jobs for Americans and get us off of foreign oil.

Rick Whitlow: Video: Courtney's Body Shot

This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on Blogger

I never got the point of the Coyote Ugly shots and why that is popular there and why they do that. But I do like watching sexy women lying on the bar. Sexy well-built healthy looking women and checking out their tight legs in tight jeans on the bar. And watching sexy women crawl on the bar. There’s nothing really there to try to understand. It is real obvious to see why that is sexy. Assuming you’re not blind or gay, or a combination of both. Which is really what I was focusing on here in this video and perhaps wishing I was the guy there pouring the whisky or scotch or whatever drink they used to pour into that women’s bellybutton. Because she is obviously a very attractive sexy women who looks great in tight jeans as most if not all sexy women do.

Ron Paul: 'A New Beginning'

Source:Ron Paul- perhaps when he was running for President 2011-12.

"America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above." 

From Eurasian View

Now that Representative Ron Paul will be leaving Congress at the end of the year, hopefully for the libertarian movement he'll spend his retirement while he still can, to continue to build this movement. Whether it's either through the Republican Party and trying to convince Libertarians and Classical Conservatives that they need to save this party, before Tea Party Nationalists ruin it and make it no longer competitive at the Federal level, for both President and the Senate. 

Tea Party Nationalists, can still get elected at the local level and for state government and the U.S. House, but the last two Federal elections, Republicans have been losing very winnable Senate elections, because they are nominating Far-Right Nationalists who can't stand to see America for what it is. And want to take the country back to the 1950s, when if had they just nominated Conservatives or even Libertarians, they probably win those elections.

So Libertarians I believe have a couple options going forward. Take over the Republican party and knock the Tea Party Nationalists, out of the leadership and start running Libertarians in Republican primaries and put the resources that are necessary to win those primaries and even run primary challenges against Far-Right Republicans who are currently in office. 

Or, Libertarians can put their resources behind the Libertarian Party and recruit new voters to that party who don't like big government Republicans or Democrats. And make the LP big and strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats in the future.

YAF-TV: Milton Friedman- 'Talks About Enemies of Markets'

Source:YAF-TV- Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market.

"Dr. Milton Friedman talks about the enemies of free markets during this address to Young America's Foundation's 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference."

Source: YAF-TV

The enemies of markets (if you want to put it that way) are people who don't believe in markets. People on the Far-Left who tend to have a social-democratic if not socialist background, who believe the central government should have a major if not the prominent role in society to see that everyone is taken care of.

But then there are people who are called crony capitalists. Who believe that government shouldn't interfere with how their business is run (meaning regulation and taxation) but that government which is funded by taxpayers, should give them extra money. So their business is as profitable as possible. And the advantage that crony capitalism has over people who are against crony capitalism is that it's non-ideological, as well as non-partisan.

You have proponents of crony capitalism on both the Left and the Right. You have opponents of crony capitalism (I'm one of them on the Left) who are on the Left and the right. Center-Left Liberals such as myself oppose crony capitalism. Center-Right Conservatives and mainstream Libertarians, oppose crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is another way of saying corporate welfare. Which has been around at least since the early 20th Century and it's not going away anytime soon. 

The New American: Thomas R. Eddlem- 'The Ron Paul Revolution: Moves to Congress'

Source:The New American- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Libertarian-leaning Republican Congressman Ron Paul lost his bid for the Republican presidential nomination this year, but a number of his acolytes ran for Congress as Republicans and won November 6. Is Congress the real location of the growing “Ron Paul revolution”?

Source:The New American

Source:Scott Nix- The Libertarian Dr. Ron Paul 

The future of libertarianism in the GOP? 

Well, Ron Paul is now 77 years old and is leaving the House of Representatives, so at the very least will no longer be much of a presence even in the House, let alone Congress as a whole. Senate Democrats will once again be in control of the Senate in the next Congress and just added two seats to their majority in 2012. And House Republicans will have a smaller majority in the next Congress than they have in this Congress. So, enough about Congress as far as Ron Paul. Besides, I'm tired of talking about Congress anyhow. 

But the movement that Representative Paul launched with my Generation X and even some Millennial's, who have the most support for socialism as far as generation (which is really the opposite of libertarianism) has real momentum with young adults in America. And there still plenty of members of Congress in both parties and in both chamber's, like Senator Rand Paul, (Ron Paul's son) Representative Justin Amash, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Mike Lee, Representative Walter Jones, and many others who've have real respect for libertarianism. And perhaps at least could be described as Conservative Libertarians. Because they believe in economic freedom, civil liberties, and federalism.

Reason Magazine: Katharine Mangu-Ward- Interviewing Alex Berezow: 'The Anti-Science Left'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Alex Berezow, talking to Reason Magazine.

"When you accuse everyone of being anti-science, it has a dampering effect on good public policy discourse," scientist and author Alex Berezow tells Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward.

Berezow, editor of Real Clear Science, calls out the political left for some of their anti-science beliefs in his new book titled Science Left Behind. Berezow explains that both political parties are equally guilty in ignoring scientific facts when it comes to certain public policies. The doctor of microbiology goes on to say that his book focuses on the scientific misgivings of the political left simply because much media has already been devoted to criticizing the Right."

From Reason Magazine

The Anti Science Left is the Far Left in America, when it comes to energy policy like when it comes to coal nuclear and oil. They are against these things because they believe they are all bad for the environment. Not willing or able to realize that these things can be produced in a way that benefits America when it comes to energy policy, the economy, foreign policy and the environment.

So-called Progressives, (Socialists, really)  tend to be believe that the only solutions to our energy policy, are renewable energy resources, like solar, wind and perhaps others. Apparently not realizing that we are at least ten years away from when these sources of energy would be strong enough to power the United States to the point that we could get off of foreign oil and even domestic oil.

And not realizing that we are simply not ready as a country to get off of oil, nuclear, gas and coal. That are economy simply need to produce the energy sources for us to move forward economically and to eventually get off of foreign oil, have a cleaner environment and become energy independent.

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Paper Rosesx- I believe that's Alli MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works. 

Reason Magazine: David Boaz: 'The Empty Case For Big Government'

Source:Reason Magazine- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"The movement for smaller government must really be doing well, considering all the attacks it has generated of late. Journalists decry "austerity" and "slashed" government spending from Athens to Albany. President Barack Obama seems to think he's running against people who wish that (as he put it) "everybody had their own fire service." And now two new books, from a leading Washington pundit and a bevy of elite professors, are bravely standing up for active government in this era of "free-market fundamentalism" and a "radical form of individualism that…denigrates the role of government."

All this while big government has been chugging right along. Federal spending has doubled in the past decade, and the national debt has tripled. The Supreme Court just upheld a vast expansion of federal control over health care. Washington is working overtime to sign up more food stamp recipients, and it has actually taken ownership of such once-proud companies as General Motors and AIG." 

From Reason Magazine

Reason: 'Nanny of The Month- LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued'

Source:Reason Magazine's Nanny of the Month.

"Washington DC might pull a Bloomberg (as in soda ban) and Florida officials have put the kibosh on the latest in kiddie shindigs (alligator pool parties). But top dishonors come from the City of Angels. 

The once mighty city now teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. It suffers from double-digit unemployment, awful schools, ridiculously bad traffic, and ambulances that have a deadly, decades-long habit of showing up late. Yet city officials never fail to find new ways to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The latest example: banning pet stores from selling cats, dogs or rabbits that come from breeders. We all want more pets to be adopted, but c'mon LA. 

This month we highlight the councilman who spearheaded the effort that will almost certainly make Los Angeles the largest US city to command its pet store owners to sell only rescue animals. 

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month: Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz!" 

From Reason Magazine

You would think with double digit unemployment, that Los Angeles would be looking to increase business and unemployment, rather than restricting how pet stores make money. 

I believe this is an example of why California and perhaps Los Angeles as well, being the largest city and metropolitan are in the state, is behind the national average when it comes to job creation and business creation, because they say no to new business's. because they don't exactly like what they do, or how they run business's. 

Its so-called pet farms that should be shut down. Places that abuses animals and potential pets and are essentially animal concentration camps. But telling pet stores that they can't sell animals, animals that would otherwise end up at the pound, or going to some concentration camp, or being put to sleep, is not the way to go. 

When you have regulations like this you might as well put a sign up in your city that say: "Closed for business! We don't want you business and jobs here. We rather be on welfare instead!"

Libertarian Party: 'Libertarian Judge Jim Gray: Repeal the Patriot Act'

Source:Libertarian Party- 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, Judge Jim Gray.

"Libertarian Judge Jim Gray: Repeal the Patriot Act" 

From the Libertarian Party

I'm with Judge Jim Gray on this one. There are better ways to protect Americans that doesn't involve violating our constitutional rights,  which is what the Patriot Act, which is bipartisan by the way, which violates our 4th Amendment right, the Right to Privacy.