Vito Denelli: George H.W. Bush & Ronald Reagan Debate Illegal Immigration (1980)

Source:The New Democrat

George Bush and Ronald Reagan both essentially arguing for some type of comprehensive immigration reform in the form of what is called a guest worker program. Where workers from lets say Mexico can some into America and work most likely jobs that Americans do not want to do and won't do. Pay taxes on that income here making probably a lot more than they could make in Mexico. But then need to go home when the season is over for the job they have here.

American Thinker: Scott Mayer: Goldwater 2.0 & Smart Conservatives

Source:The New Democrat 

I'm not sure what Scott Mayer means by "Smart Conservative" and I read his entire post on the American Thinker. So I'll give you my own interpretation of what a Smart Conservative is. It would be a real Conservative classical Conservative if you will. Not someone who bashes big government with one hand as they are trying to expand it on the other hand. Like with President George W. Bush in the early 2000s with No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and later the Medicare prescription drug expansion which by the way wasn't paid for.

Or today's so-called Conservatives who sound like Ron Paul when it comes to the welfare state and putting down government involvement in the economy. While at the same time wanting to expand government when it comes to the Federal Government regulating marriage to prevent gays from getting married. Or trying to outlaw pornography from the federal level. Or trying to keep the failed War on Drugs alive at the federal level. Representative Michelle Bachmann (thank God she's leaving Congress at the end of this year) comes to mind as a phony Conservative.

Similar to Ronald Reagan Barry Goldwater suffers from a case of cherry picker's disease. People who claim to love the man and say they are that type of Republican or Conservative. But only based that love and affection on a handful of issues and policies. They cherry pick what they love about them and ignore their disagreements with them on issues they disagree on. Or even worst try to convince people that their political idols don't actually believe in what they believed.

The fact is Barry Goldwater doesn't represent the Republican Party of today. But at best a wing of the party the conservative libertarian wing of the party that may be strong enough to nominate their first Republican presidential candidate since 1964 in 2016. And of course I'm thinking of Senator Rand Paul and you see other Conservative Libertarians in Congress along with Senator Paul like Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Jeff Flake, Representative Justin Amash and Representative Walter Jones who represent this wing of the party in Congress as well.

But Barry Goldwater even though he probably is the father of the modern conservatism today and back then that type of conservatism is a classical form of it. The real thing which is how I would put it that truly believes in limited government and federalism and just doesn't cherry pick where they support limited government based on things they like and dislike. But believes the individual and states should be making of the decisions about their own affairs when it comes to both domestic and personal issues. Instead of those key and personal decisions being micro-managed from Washington.

The American Thinker: Mary Anne Marcella: The Death of America'

Source:The New Democrat

This post is somewhat challenging because it is going to be two parts. That by itself is not challenging, but one part is going to sound and be pretty negative and partisan. And the other part is going to be pretty positive and hopefully unifying and uplifting about why we are Americans and what brings us together. Which generally has nothing to do with religion, or ethnic or racial heritage, or the country from which our ancestors came. But the national values that we share as Americans.

The negative part first. There are those a major, but seriously shrinking faction on the Right people who I call Traditional Values Conservatives. Neoconservatives would be more accurate from a political point of view, but certainly conservative in a cultural standpoint in the sense that they want to conserve their way of life and how they grew and how America looked the way up until let's say the mid 1960s or so. And then of course went through dramatic national changes.

Traditional Values believers believe the country as it has become more diverse across the national spectrum and more tolerant of people who are not like them again across the national spectrum and more tolerant of different lifestyles, that the country as a result has been going downhill ever since culturally and politically. That their Protestant Anglo-Saxon way of life which tends to be deeply routed in the South and rural parts of America outside of the South is under attacked as there are now a lot less of them. And a lot more Americans of other racial, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

What the Neo-Right calls "Traditional America" starts with the founding of our Federal Republic that grants so many constitutional and individual rights to Americans regardless of their racial, ethnic, religious or cultural background. But Neoconservatives believe those rights are just for them. "Religious freedom doesn't include Muslims because Islam is not a real religion". Would be an example of their bigotry. But that would be the modern version of it to go along with how they feel about "homosexuals are people who are immoral and not deserving the same rights as straights. Latinos are Un-American and not deserving the same rights and do not deserve to be in America".

I could include how our Founding Americans felt about Africans and the African slave trade in America. "Africans are not people and as a result should be treated like animals or property". But that might be to harsh for some to hear. The problem that the Neo-Right has had in America is they've lost almost every cultural battle this country has fought in the Cultural War mostly through the court system and is a big reason why we are so diverse as a country to go along with our immigration system. That we take people from all over the world regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.

Now for the positive side. One of the things that makes America exceptional and yes I do believe in American Exceptionalism is that unlike most European and Asian countries America is not dominated by one race, ethnicity, religion or culture. And yet post Civil War and civil rights movement we've managed to live pretty well together as one country that is at least physically still together. Sure there are a tone of things that divide us, but generally not relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or even sexuality. What tends to divide us has to do with economic and educational status. To go along with political ideology, lifestyle choices and social status.

What brings Americans together tends to deal with our national values that most Americans share. The beliefs in individual freedom both economic and personal. Our beliefs in the Constitution and at least most of that document, not parts that get cherry picked for partisan political reasons. Our beliefs in freedom to go along with responsibility and tolerance of other Americans who don't share their political, cultural or religious beliefs. Our beliefs in education, opportunity, helping those in need. That is the only way a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people or so that is as racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse can function as one country without separating into several different new countries.

Mises Daily Andrew Syrios: 'A Brief History of Progressivism'

Source:The New Democrat

What is a Progressive? It depends on what you mean and almost who you ask. But whatever a Progressive is, they aren't Liberals unless the idea of what a progressive is means someone who believes in progress. But without some real ideological vision in how to achieve progress. So if that is the case than I would be both a Liberal because I believe in individual freedom, individual and equal rights for all and responsibility, constitutional law and rights that can't be taken away just through majoritarian rule. Limited government that protects people from predators, but doesn't try to run our lives for us.

But I'm also someone who believes in progress and that even government has limited role in seeing that progress is achieved for the people. To me that is what a classical Progressive I guess the Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt's, Lyndon Johnson's back in the day Progressives who believed in progress and using government including the Federal Government in a limited way to bring about that progress. But if you watch MSNBC now and read so-called progressive publications like The Nation, Salon, the AlterNet, TruthOut and now the new New Republic progressivism doesn't look the way I described it.

Lets say today's Progressives or a lot of people who are labeled as Progressives are really what I call Eurocrats. Social Democrats people who believe in social democracy and that "freedom economic and otherwise is essentially dangerous. Because it comes with so much individual choice and decision-making that can be overwhelming for an individual. So you need a government big enough especially at the federal level to ensure that dangerous even individual choices aren't made. Because when bad individual choices are made the society as a whole as to pay for those bad choices".

That is not Lyndon Johnson progressivism. President Johnson never wanted a government so big that it could essentially run Americans lives for them and outlaw and remove risk completely. He wanted to use government to empower as many Americans as possible to be able to live the American Dream. (For lack of a better phrase) And what I mean by that is that LBJ did believe in public social insurance and the safety net. But not use it to run people's lives for them, but to empower people in need to be able to help themselves. Today's so-called Progressives are much further left than that.

If you really are a Progressive you believe government especially the Federal Government has a role limited at that, but a major role in seeing that everyone has the ability to live well in life. And even live in freedom with the ability to take care of themselves. So you believe in things like like public financing for infrastructure and education and even health care. But you don't believe government especially the Federal Government should have a complete monopoly over these services. You believe in things like the safety net, but not having it so big that people no longer have to make economic decisions for themselves.

A real Progressive believes in public broadcasting, but doesn't believe government should own and operate all media. Just having an independent public broadcasting option for people to use as well. And if you are a real Progressive you are not a prohibitionist or a nanny statist. Someone who believes in outlawing personal choices that are dangerous. Like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and add junk food and soft drinks today. And if you are a real Progressive you believe in gun control to keep firearms out of the hands of predators and the mentally disabled. But not outlaw them from responsible individuals who use them for protection and have them in private hands.

Progressives, statists, and Communists aren't the same people with three different labels. Progressive are not only democratic, but believe in a certain level of individual freedom because they don't believe you can have a government big enough to run people's lives for them. But also because a government that big would be regressive and not serve anyone well. And that educated people tend to know what they need to do and have in order to live well and be productive responsible people. But you want government strong enough to ensure that everyone has a quality opportunity to live in freedom.

Los Angeles Times: David Dreier: Can We Make Congress Move?

Source:The New Democrat 

With all due respect to Representative David Dreier who served in the House of Representatives from 1981-2013 and has and inside view of Congress at least the House, "it is worst than it looks". To paraphrase a title of a book from Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein in their 2006 book about Congress. The public is obviously not always right and because of that I'm one of the last people who would ever advocate for a pure majoritarian social democratic form of government. But back in 2006 Congress's approval rating was somewhere around fifteen-percent and now it is ten-percent on a good day.

And if you just look all of the available evidence about Congress both the House and Senate, Congress is clearly broken. And then if you look at how the House and Senate deal with each other, which in a lot of cases is not at all and how representatives and senators talk about the other chamber, it is even worst. Forget about liking each other the Republican House and Democratic Senate do not even respect each other. The American people voted for a divided Congress in the last two elections and that is exactly what they have. And Congress as a result is so divided that it can't get it's basic work done like a highway bill.

When Congress actually does come together and does some work. It generally starts with the Senate because House Republicans have this take it or leave it approach over there. "Pass our Republican bill, or we'll pass nothing". Which gets blocked by Senate Leader Reid because Democrats are in the majority and get to decide what comes to the floor in the Senate. Senate Democrats will then try to write their own bill that gets blocked by Senate Republicans because Senate Democrats don't have the sixty votes for cloture which is how debate ends.

And then when cooler heads prevail which is how the Senate is supposed to operate anyway, practical Senate Democrats and Republicans come together and write a compromise. Which passes unless a group of very partisan Democratic and Republican Senators are able to block it, or get an amendment to the bill that makes the bill unpopular on both sides. But even when the Senate gets a compromise passed it is dead on arrival in the House because it is not a House Republican bill. And the bill at best is a temporary fix to a long-term problem. Which that line right there is all you need to know about why Congress doesn't work. Temporary solutions to long-term problems.

If you think that is as bad as Congress can get, stay tuned because there is plenty more that will be written in the future. And no I don't have a solution in how to fix Congress in one post. Because it is a bicameral legislature with both chambers needing fixing. I'm not sure I could write one post about how to fix the House or Senate that could cover all of the issues in one post. And anyone including Representative David Dreier still wondering why Congress doesn't work?

Learn Liberty: Alex Kreit: Don't be a Victim

Source:The New Democrat  

I guess Alex Kreit is saying that "we shouldn't be a drug war victim unlike the millions of Americans who are already drug victims". Since this wasteful authoritarian paternalistic bogus War on Drugs was created by the Nixon Administration in 1971. And has been enforced by every other American president both Republican and Democratic since some forty-three years after this so-called war on what people put into their own bodies has been launched.

Econ Corner: Milton Friedman Schools Brainwashed Socialist on School Choice

Source:Econ Corner.

Source:The New Democrat

The man in this video trying to explain why school choice does not work even though he failed to do that and at best laid out some of the disadvantages that poor Americans especially African-Americans face in this country was just repeating talking points of leftist supporters of teachers unions and so-forth. Along with questioning motives and reasons why people who support school choice That supporters of school choice assume that school choice is the answer to education and that they assume everything being equal with each racial group in the country. No one is making these assumptions.

Parents who have experienced school choice and let's take charter schools to use as an example schools that are owned by government but operated independently like school choice. Because they see their kids actually getting an education. With a real shot of making it in life unlike their parents who were probably stuck in school where they weren't able to do that, or didn't take advantage of the opportunities given to them.

You need to know about the opposition of school choice and why they oppose it. Who do teacher unions represent and why they are in business. If you guessed teachers, well good guess captain. Would you like another question? And what school choice represents is competition inside of the public school system when you are talking about public school choice including charter schools. Which means if parents don't believe their neighborhood school is effectively raising their kids, they can send their kids to a better school. Which means fewer resources and students going to that underperforming school.

Public school choice means competition inside of the public school system where teachers wouldn't be guaranteed of advancement and raises just for simply being a teacher. Where public schools wouldn't be guaranteed new students for simply being in existence. Which means teachers would actually have to produce. Meaning their students would actually have to learn what is being taught and be at grade level. Or they could lose students to other schools and teachers may be out of jobs. And that scares the hell out of teachers unions.
Source:Econ Corner

Sheldon Richman: Crime & Punishment in a Free Society

Source:The New Democrat 

Before you talk about crime and punishment in a free society you should first talk about what exactly is crime and punishment and what is a free society. If you are currently confined in prison as a convict or in jail either serving a light sentence as far as time, or awaiting trial for a felony, well obviously your world or society is not free. I mean seriously what sober person in their right mind not mentally challenged in any way would choose to live in prison or jail. But what is crime and punishment? Well I'll tell you what it should be which is punishment for crimes against society and innocent people's freedom. Especially the Right to Life that jail or prison is the only option as a suitable punishment for the offender once convicted.

A free society is not the freedom to do whatever the hell you want including hurting innocent people. Which is what Neoconservatives and to a certain extent Progressives seem to think it is. Which is why I'm neither a Neoconservative or Progressive. A free society is where a society where the people have the right to mind their own business and manage their own individual affairs. As well as being held responsible for how they manage their own affairs. Where law enforcement comes in is to manage how people interact with each other. Not arrest people for what they do to themselves and try to protect people from themselves.

But that is not how crime and punishment works in America. You can be a victim of a real crime with the offender getting away with it because law enforcement, or the prosecution, or a combination of both screws up the case with the guilty walking away because their constitutional rights were violated. And you can end up doing time in jail or prison for something that is not really a crime in a true free society. But government has taken upon itself to try to protect us from ourselves. Like being arrested for gambling your own money. Or being arrested for possessing or using pot to use as examples.

We have roughly two-million Americans give or take in one form of incarceration in the United States if you add up federal, state and local government's. And a big reason for that and not the only reason is because America is truly not a free society. We are freer than most if not everyone else when it comes to individual rights and personal freedom. But a big reason why we have so many Americans in prison is because we arrest people for either their own good. Or sending people to state or federal prison when they could've been given probation, or sent to a halfway house, county jail or even rehab.

It is not just that we aren't a true free society that America has no many prisoners. But also because we over-sentence and too many times use prison as the first if not only option when it comes to felonies in America. And I'm talking about real crimes, but also things where the prison should be the last option because the only person the offender is hurting is them self. The War on Drugs comes to mind damn fast. And if you are thinking I'm not offering any solutions to this problem, think again. Because I already have, but I'll repeat them. Make America a true free society and don't use prison as the first option for lower-level felonies especially where there are better options available.

Washington Free Beacon: Matthew Continetti: The Old New Europe'

Source:The New Democrat

Look I'm not crazy about President Obama's foreign policy right now either. Just three years ago and even through 2012 I thought I had a pretty good idea about what it was. What is called the Obama Doctrine speech from early 2011 laid out clearly what the Obama foreign policy at least was then. And was built on what is called Soft Power. Which means you are strong which includes military, diplomacy and economically so you don't have to use that strength. Meaning you are so strong that other countries would be crazy to want to mess with you.

Another part of Soft Power has to do with when you use your strength. The obvious one being when you are under attack by either another country or some terrorist group. Or when another country is protecting terrorists that just hit you. Which is the reason why we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the then Taliban Afghan Regime was protecting terrorists in their country that were part of the 9/11 attacks. And another being you use force when your allies are under attack and do not have the resources to defend themselves. As we saw with Britain in World War II.

The third one is trickier and a hell of a lot more controversial than just the second one. Which has to do with what do you do when innocent people are being murdered especially by their own government. As we are still seeing in Syria and as we saw in Libya in 2010/11. Do you but out and say "that is none of our business what countries do to their own people". Even if you can do something constructive about it. Or do you act and say the "developed world or West will not sit on our hands and watch innocent people being murdered".

But again Soft Power is not just about military force. There are strong diplomatic and economic components to it as well so you never have to use the military to intervene in the first place. Under Soft Power military is always the last option. With Neoconservatives it tends to be first if not the only. With Liberals and Soft Power is a liberal foreign policy military force is generally the last option. Because you only want to risk the lives of your military when you have to. So you take advantage of all of your diplomatic and economic options first .

In the first term except as it related to Syria I thought President Obama and his National Security Council had this policy down. But lately it seems to be that they are worried about disasters and things blowing up in their faces so much which makes it very difficult to act on anything controversial. So what we see instead from this President is inaction. That "it is better to not act and rick some situation blowing up in our faces then to act and making the situation worst". Which is not Soft Power or Hard Power, but No Power and it makes America look weak as we've seen with Russia with their actions against Ukraine.

The Week: Damon Linker: The Laughable to Get Mitt Romney to Run in 2016

Source:The New Democrat

Hubert Humphrey had a great line in 1968 when he and Richard Nixon were the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Vice President Humphrey's line was about one of Mr. Nixon's campaign themes for president in 1968 which was The New Nixon. And talking about Nixon's multiple political comebacks in his career as well as attempted political comebacks.

The 1952 Checkers speech that kept then Senator Nixon on the Republican ticket for Vice President.

The experienced and ready to serve Nixon in 1960 when he ran for President the first time.

The New Nixon 1962 when he ran for Governor of California in after losing the 1960 presidential election to Jack Kennedy.

And what Hubert said about all of these new Nixon's was that "a man who has had as many political face jobs and touchups in his career can't be very new". I'm paraphrasing here but that is damn close. And you go to Mitt Romney and doesn't matter which Mitt you choose and I'll get into more of that later, but Mitt Romney has had a similar political career. One of the differences between Tricky Dick Nixon and Flip Flopper Mitt Romney is that Dick won most of his political elections. Nixon was 8-2 as a political candidate and incumbent which covers all of his Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential elections. Mitt is 1-3 not exactly as winner as a politician.

But let's take a look at Mitt Romney's political career because that should explain that 1-3 record. He was Liberal Democrat Mitt in 1994 essentially running as a New Democrat in Massachusetts (even though he is a Republican, go figure) for U.S. Senate against the progressive champion Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost that election overwhelmingly an election where he was a strong favorite going in. Then Moderate Mitt shows up in 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And of course that is still the only election Mitt has ever won in now sixty-seven years on this planet. Moderate Mitt managed to stay around as Governor until he ran for President the first time in 2007.

In 2007-08 Religious-Conservative/Neo-Con Hawk (even though he's a Mormon and comes form a religion that believes in multiple spouses) Mitt shows up to run for President the first time. Mike Huckabee deserves the credit for the best line about Mitt Romney in that campaign. When Governor Huckabee said that "Mitt looks like the man who fired your father". Mitt Romney has Wall Street country club Northeastern conservative establishment Republican written all over his chess and back. And yet he's never run as someone who is proud of his success in life. But the candidate who runs as the guy who tries to please everybody, but instead offends everyone at the same time.

In 2009-10 was probably the best part of Mitt Romney's political career where he was once again out of public office because he couldn't get a job in it. But that is a time when he did some real studying about current affairs especially foreign policy and learning about the United States Government and issues that the country was facing. The problem was that he didn't use that knowledge very well to communicate a reason for why he should be elected President in 2012. But instead focused on who does he need to vote for him and how to talk everyone at the same time with different messages for each group.

2012 is the biggest stain not only on Mitt's career and something the Republican Party is going to have a real hard time living down especially if they lose again in 2016 and fail to win back the Senate in 2014. Because 2012 at least based on history and the economy was an election they should've won at least on paper. Going up against a fairly weak incumbent (but not weak enough for Mitt Romney) in President Barack Obama who was somewhere around 45% approval nationally with a struggling economy that had eight-percent unemployment most of the year that was barely growing. With a high budget deficit and national debt.

But again we are talking about Mitt Romney here so what does he do, but of course changes his political appearance once again. Who is Mitt Romney? You ask Mitt and put him on truth serum and he might say "I'm who I need to be to accomplish what I want to accomplish at any given time". You ask him off of truth serum and you may get five different answers to the same question at the same time. 2012 was Flip Flopper Mitt because I'm still struggling to figure out what his campaign theme was about because he changed it multiple times. At best it was successful businessman with a history of turning struggling organizations around who would turn the American economy around Mitt. Not exactly inspirational.

When the main question about a politician or a politician wannabe in Mitt Romney's case who has spent only four years of his entire life in public office (not for a lack of trying) because he lost most of the elections he's run in, but when the main question is after twenty years on public life as far as being well known and the number one question is "who are you?" Or "who is he"? You know you are in trouble as a political candidate. And that pretty much summarizes the political career of Mitt  Romney. The man who didn't even have the guts to let voters know who is he and what is he about and why they should vote for him.

USA Today: Jonathan Turley: Fighting Pot With Water

Source:The New Democrat

All the evidence that you need to know that Barack Obama is not a Liberal (even though I wish he was) is to look at his administration's approach when it comes to the failed War on Drugs, marijuana, privacy and civil liberties. It's always security first with this President and his security team. Security always before freedom with them. I'm not saying President Obama is not a Liberal, but certainly not a Liberal in the classical sense. And at best a Progressive in the paternalistic prohibitionist sense when it comes to these personal and security issues. But with clear liberal or progressive leanings when it comes to economic policy.

And the Obama Administration's water policy with their federal water agency when it comes to shutting down marijuana farmers and their water by refusing water to these farmers and saying they can't have water for their marijuana growth is a perfect example of that. They've concluded that taking a big government anti-federalist position when it comes to marijuana and saying that even though two states have now legalized it that they've decided they aren't going to shutdown their marijuana in the old fashion way. By continuing to arrest marijuana users, dealers and growers. Because now they would be on their own and without the help from state police. And politically it wouldn't look good with their own liberal base.

So what the Obama Administration does instead of breaking through the front door to prevent marijuana use of all kinds, they sneak through the backdoor and cutoff marijuana farmers supply of water so they can no longer grow their product that is now legal in their own state Colorado or Washington. And that is where the anti-liberal, anti-federalist, pro-big government leanings of the Obama Administration comes in. To prohibit things they see as dangerous even if they are now legal in some states.

What the Obama Administration could do to help themselves with their liberal base and with Independents and with Congressional Democrats who are facing tough elections in November is to back off on marijuana where it is now legal at least at the state level. Back off technically and in actuality and to say "we are going to see how these experiments go and see them through. Because we know prohibition is not working because people use marijuana anyway regardless if it's legal or not and generally smart enough not to get caught". That would help them with Congressional Democrats who are in tough races because it help bring Democrats to the polls and give them a reason to vote Democratic in November.

USFL History: USFL Comes Back

Source:Real Life Journal

I have already written a blog about why the United Sates Football League failed in the mid 1980s and how it could've succeeded. So I'm not going to focus too much on that but the reasons why the USFL could've succeeded and still be in business today are the same reasons how a USFL could make it today, because there are enough non NFL markets in America, to support a USFL franchise. And enough good NFL caliber players, to make the USFL work today, who maybe aren't ready for the NFL yet or have been overlooked and just need that one shot to make it.

The NFL is somewhat short on quarterbacks offensive lineman, defensive lineman and there are plenty of NFL players, that simply aren't ready to be stars in the NFL today. And need time to develop and when they are sent out to play now, they simply don't look ready to play yet, but if they are playing in the USFL and given a chance to develop and play and not have to worry about playing against the best football players in the World, then the pressure is off to a certain extent instead of trying to live up to some huge contract that they signed and would be better off starting in the USFL.

Put those players in the USFL, they would be surrounded by good young players, who just need time to develop or that shot to be a good NFL or USFL player. The USFL could serve as either a developmental league for the NFL or they could end up, however they develop their players and are able to attract players to their league perhaps one day end up being part of the NFL or perhaps merging with the Canadian Football League, the USFL and maybe we could end up with some type Continental Bowl in the future.

But in the short-term, the USFL needs to be about developing NFL players, that aren't ready to be in the NFL yet or players that are so far down on the depth chart, that they aren't getting a chance to develop. And they need do this by being a spring league at least in the beginning, basically starting training camp and Preseason after the Super Bowl and playing in major non NFL markets. Again a big reason why the USFL failed, was because they were in big NFL markets, like Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago etc.

The USFL can't do that again and need to go to places like, Orlando, Birmingham, Memphis, perhaps Columbus, Ohio, San Antonio, Portland, Salt Lake, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, perhaps San Jose or Sacramento. Major big cities like this that want pro football but don't have an NFL Franchise yet that would especially support a USFL franchise in the spring. And you take the players from the NFL or were overlooked by the NFL, that are simply not ready to play full-time in the NFL yet, thats how the USFl could succeed.

Laurence M. Vance: The Transportation Fiscal Cliff

Source:The New Democrat

Just to respond to Laurence Vance's libertarian argument against the Federal Highway System. The reason President Dwight Eisenhower (no one's Socialist) and Democrats as well as Republicans in Congress created the FHS in the 1950s was because the United States is exactly that. One country and in order to drive from one end to the other like truckers in Dallas who have to get products to Atlanta within days you need roads and highways that connect to each other from state to state. You need a Federal authority to handle those issues so those projects get done.

The states have their highways that are used by their drivers in their states and so do the counties. But you need Federal highways to get from state to state. But as far as the so-called 'fiscal cliff' as it relates to our American highways. That is real I just haven't heard it put that way yet, but according to the U.S. Core of Engineers (not Socialists) we have over a trillion dollar deficit when it comes to infrastructure in this country. As far as repairs that need to be done and projects that need to be built that aren't getting done. Which is money that is not going into the economy. Contracts that aren't going to construction companies and workers that aren't being hired to complete these projects. Which also leaves our roads and bridges less safer than they should be.

The way you correct this problem is to do one of the few things that Congress is supposed to do in the first place. And that is pass a highway bill and fix the financing in the Highway Trust Fund. Which until the Tea Party took control of the House of Representatives in 2011 was never that difficult of task for Congress to accomplish. Because senators and representatives in both parties understood the importance of the the Highway Trust Fund. As well as how good of a tool it was in getting reelected. By getting money out of Washington and back home to their state or district to fund highways and bridges, as well as other infrastructure.

To fund the Highway Trust Fund again is fairly simple. You can raise the gas tax, tax oil, tax pollution, tax alcohol, tax tobacco, tax things that people don't need that are more luxury items that they will still pay for because they love those things. And put that money into our infrastructure. Or you could do something more radical that I think a real Libertarian would like or at least not hate. But that is more of a New Democrat liberal idea which would be to create an independent National Infrastructure Bank. Which would fund and prioritize our infrastructure projects and finance them by bringing in investors from the private sector that would put up the money for the projects and get that money back plus profit from the users of the projects. Which is an idea that deserves a post of its own.

Talking Points Memo: Greg Gutfield, 'Hobby Lobby Case Sends Shrieking Feminists Into Hysteria'

Source:The New Democrat

Greg Gutfield with an interesting take on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. I covered this last night, but again if you are seriously a Liberal and you don't just call yourself a Liberal because you are afraid of the political stigma that comes with being called a socialist or a social democrat, but you are a real Liberal with real liberal feelings and politics, then you shouldn't have a problem with the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. And I would also argue that if you are a true feminist you shouldn't have a problem with the decision either.

Why because the Supreme Court didn't say that you can't have birth control or contraceptives. Its just said government can't force people to pay for your birth control or contraceptives. But that is not enough for radical feminists. They not only want to be able to do what they want to do. But force people to pay for their choices and then eliminate any possible opposition to their beliefs by trying to get people fired when they say something on their show or write an article saying something that offends them.

The Week: Damon Linker: Why Liberals Should Support the Hobby Lobby Decision

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Damon Linker that real Liberals as I call people who are actually Liberals should support the Hobby Lobby decision. But perhaps I would put it differently. That it is one thing to be pro-choice which I am on most things as a Liberal. But it is another thing to say that you are not only pro-choice and lets take birth control to use as an example and that you believe women should have this right so much that you believe government should enforce that belief on the rest of the country even through law.

I believe in a hell of a lot of individual freedom as a Liberal and that is really what liberalism is about. Liberation and liberty what the word actually comes from. A bit different from collectivist or collectivism or the collective things that well collectivists tend to believe Socialists even. That "individual freedom by itself is dangerous and if you allow individuals to make these decisions for themselves you are giving them freedom to make mistakes that society have to pay for". Which is the common view of people who are supposed to be the so-called modern Liberals and Progressives. But they aren't, instead they are collectivists and statists which is very different.

But my broader point is you can believe in all of the individual freedom in the world. But if you don't match that with personal responsibility and that freedom is not free and that people need to be held responsible for their own personal choices. And that one's personal freedom can't infringe on others. Like forcing someone or organizations to pay for your own health care even if it goes against their religious beliefs. That is when and only when freedom is dangerous. When people aren't responsible for their own personal choices. And are allowed to infringe on others freedom and beliefs.

If you want birth control and decide to have an abortion, by all means more power to you. Just as long as I don't have to pay for it as an individual or no one else has to pay for it by law. Or we as taxpayers don't have to pay for it collectively. Which is why I agree with the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision. Because they aren't saying you can't have birth control, (at least not collectively) but what they are saying is that you can't force others to pay for your birth control.