Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: QuoteAddicts.com
Showing posts with label FRS FreeState. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRS FreeState. Show all posts

Saturday, August 4, 2018

The Cold Turkey: Sean Penn- On Hugo Chavez & Fidel Castro: Hollywood Leftist Support For Socialist Dictators

Source:The Cold Turkey- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn, on President's Hugo  Chavez and Fidel Castro.
Source:FRS FreeState

“Sean Penn talks about Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.” Originally from The Cold Turkey.

For the life of me I don't understand why today's so-called Progressives ( radical hippie, Socialists, Communists in actuality ) love affair or admiration with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Progressives are supposed to be people that are about progressive through government action like democracy and yet they defend people, who are anti-democratic. Who've attempted to centralize power with their presidencies, in President Castro's case, have been successful in doing that. President Chavez's case still trying to do that in the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, still has that official name.

Source: The Nation Magazine- Hollywood actor/activist Sean Penn and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )
But if President Chavez is successful, they'll basically be another Communist Republic in Latin America. He's already been successful in nationalizing the energy industry, as well as at least certain parts of the media. But Venezuelan Democrats still have media outlets they can go to but in President Castro's case, it's official he's had a Communist State in Cuba for over fifty years. This guy is not a democrat and never has been, he's not even a Democratic Socialist, he's a Statist, who wants his people to be subjects of the State. And Hugo Chavez is one of Fidel Castro's biggest admirers.

Source: The Atlantic- Prudent Fidel Castro ( Communist Republic of Cuba ) and President Hugo Chavez ( Socialist Republic of Venezuela )
So why would Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, people like Sean Penn who I generally have a lot of respect for, respect him more as an actor ( but that's a different story ) be standing up for people who are anti-democratic? First it's Castro, now it's Chavez, who is next President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation? Who's not a Communist but certainly a Statist, who's really Russia's version of a Nationalist.

I can understand why Democratic Socialists would speak highly of European Socialists or Canadian Socialists, but all those people are Democratic Socialists. Those are the people that regressive so-called Progressives like Sean Penn and others should be speaking highly of. Not Communists in Cuba, Venezuela or anywhere else, people who hold their own people down, because they don't want them to be powerful on their own. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez aren't people to be admired, unless you are a Communist.

Not Progressives seem to have this notion that Americans, especially the Federal Government, have no right to criticize people in other countries. Because we aren't perfect, that we can't speak out against voter fraud in Venezuela or anywhere else. Because we have voter fraud in our own country. If that was the rule, then no one would ever be able to criticize anyone else. Because no one is perfect and this would be a very quiet world.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Journey Into Evil: The Charles Manson Story


Source: BIO- The real Charles Manson-
Source:FRS FreeState 

A lot can be said about Charles Manson most of it bad. I mean he was the leader of one of the most evil crime families that America has ever seen. And this wasn’t a crime family that was built around enriching themselves financially off the backs of people who’ve made it in life. But a crime family that was built around destroying the establishment essentially. That if you were successful in life, especially if you were a successful Caucasian-American in society in the Los Angeles area and Charlie Manson knew about you and could get to you, you were a potential target of the Manson Family.

If you were on the Manson Crime Family’s hit list, they were not going to take what you earned in life. They weren’t after the wealth, but the person themselves. That the establishment was the problem in America. And Charlie Manson had this fantasy that if all of these wealthy people were murdered, that these murders would get blamed on African-Americans in Los Angeles. And that Caucasians would be so mad by this, that it would unite some type of race war between Caucasians and Africans in Southern California. This sounds crazy, but that’s the fantasy that Manson had. But what he didn’t realize apparently as well as several other things, that he was in California not Alabama. And race wars just didn’t happen there. People in LA learned to live with each other.

Charlie Manson’s life was tragic enough and to a certain extent society was partially to blame for this. With the way Manson was raised. But the bigger tragedy was, its one thing to destroy your own life, but its another to destroy others. And his family members are responsible for their actions in the Manson Family. But without Charlie Manson the Manson Crime Family never gets created and he targeted young adults in the late 1960s to join his family and show them another way of living.

Manson gave his members what they were missing in life, in exchange for doing Charlie’s evil business. Do the deeds that Manson didn’t have the guts to do on his own, which is murder people. And thank God most people don’t have the guts to murder people, or this would be a much different country. Thats how the Manson Family operated and how they were able to be in business. Charlie Manson was sentenced to prison for the last time in his life in 1970 after being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder of the people his family murdered Charlie been in prison ever since and will never leave prison for what he did. Nor should he, because he’s clearly not rehabilitated. And even the California corrections system recognizes this. But he’s lucky in once sense to even be a live for the murders he’s responsible for. Had the death penalty not have been outlawed in 1973, Charlie and his followers would be dead right now. Probably executed by the late 1970s and early 1980s. And how his members, most of the women anyway have turned out and conducted themselves while in prison and are now rehabilitated, that may have been a tragedy. But Charlie is still the same person he’s always been as an adult.
Source:BIO

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

David Von Pein: Meet The Press: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (October, 1960)

The early 1960s was one of the hottest periods of the Cold War (no pun intended) and spending the first ten minutes of Meet The Press talking about China and other communist activities in Asia should be no surprise to anyone familiar with this period. Senator Kennedy who is a political hero of mine and perhaps my number one political hero and a big reason why I am a New Democrat. But he sounded on the defensive on the issue of Asia and China’s influence in Southeast Asia. And seem to want to move past that issue by saying that “Richard Nixon and I agree on this issue”.


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Jack Paar Show: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (1960)

Source:FRS FreeState

Jack Kennedy running for president in 1960 because he thought it was the most important job in the world. And that if he was going to be able to do the most for his country, serving in Congress even both in the House and Senate that he did for a total of fourteen-years in Congress was not going to be good enough. That he needed to be President of the United States and that America needed to be an example in the world when it came to freedom and take the lead in showing the dangerous effects of communism.

There are more reasons why Jack Kennedy ran for president in 1960. He thought the country was starting to fall behind Russia in some key areas like with exploring outer space and perhaps in technology and influence in the world. And that the Eisenhower Administration had felt satisfied with how things were going in the country, which is how Senator Kennedy felt. And that America needed to get moving again and he believed he was the person to get America moving again.


Sunday, August 25, 2013

Minister Malcolm X: On The March On Washington (1963)

Source:Angelo Shabazz X- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X.
Source:FRS FreeState

"Minister Malcolm X: “MARCH ON WASHINGTON WAS DECEPTIVE”

From Angelo Shabazz

In this speech, you can definitely see the difference in methods and strategy between Malcolm X and Dr. King. Dr. King understood that for African-Americans to get their freedom and equal rights under law, they would have to work with members of the majority population, (meaning Caucasian-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons) to get those civil rights laws passed.

Whereas Malcolm X, at least early in the early 1960s, saw that as treasonous to work with what he would called the “White man”. That African-Americans should already have their freedom and equal rights. And that the United States Government should just give those things to the African-American community.

Dr. King was smart enough as the brilliant leader that he was to know that those things weren’t going to just be given to his community. Especially by racist Southerners in Congress and at the local and state levels in Southern states. That they would have to fight and work to get them and go over the bigots heads and work with non-racists in the Caucasian-American community.

The March on Washington, was very successful, despite what Malcolm X said. Because in that speech, Dr. King lays out the whole vision of the civil rights movement. Dr. King was talking about an America, where his children and all children aren’t judge by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Where all men and women are equal under law. And not treated better, or worst simply because of their color, or race.

Dr. King’s vision was obviously not good enough for Malcolm X and his supporters and the broader Black Power movement and the New Left that emerged in the late 1960s, that was against the War in Vietnam, but the American capitalist economic system and the power structure in general. The broader Black Power movement and New-Left were revolutionaries. They didn’t believe in working with others to get what they want. But that they should just simply take what they want.

Malcolm X, was part of the Black Power movement. Not the socialist elements of that movement. Because he wasn’t a Socialist, but the revolutionary elements of that movement. That said: “African-Americans, should have their freedom now and we aren’t going to wait around, or try to get laws passed giving us what we should’ve already had in the first place.” And I’ve blogged this before.

Dr. King and Malcolm X, represent not just two wings of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but two era’s as well. Dr. King, represents the 1960s, when these laws were passed that he had a lot to do with the passage of those laws. Because he understood like a good politician does, that you have to work with others to get laws passed and get new policies.

Malcolm X, represents the post-civil rights movement, the vision for how African-Americans not only have equal rights under law, but an economic vision for how the community can succeed in America built around education, economic development, and personal responsibility in the community.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Black & Right: Minister Malcolm X: Democratic Party

Source:Black & Right- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Malcolm X: Black Democrats are ‘chumps'”


The reason why there were so many Democratic members of Congress in the 1960s was because of the Dixiecrats the Southern Caucus in Congress who were famous for blocking civil rights legislation in the Senate and the African-Americans who could vote back then, were voting for more liberal or progressive Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, Republicans were competitive back then with African-Americans as well as in the Northeast, because they weren’t controlled by the Religious-Right, or people who I today call Neo-Confederates. Who are still fighting the Civil War let alone the Culture War who back then were blocking civil rights legislation in Congress. Today they are pushing these so-called Voter ID laws bills that are a solution in search of a problem. But are actually designed to prevent traditional Democrats like African-Americans, Latinos, young people from voting in swing states, so Republicans can stay in power there.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

ABC News: Good Morning America: U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann Won’t Run For Re-Election


Source:ABC News- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) announcing that she’s not running for reelection to the U.S. House, so she can go back home and get the help that she deserves. Actually, I don’t know what she’s saying here.

Source:FRS FreeState

“One of the founding members of the Tea Party Caucus announces she will retire from congress. For more on this story, click here:ABC News

From ABC News

I know we are supposed to have a citizen Congress with citizen Representatives and Senators who are supposed to represent the people. And as the great political satirist George Carlin once said, our politicians come from us and represent us. They come from our communities, go to our schools and so-forth, live in our communities. So we can’t really complain about the politicians that we have. Especially the House district that Representative Michele Bachmann represents.

I mean here’s a community that first elected Michele to the U.S. House and then reelected her three times. And had a better choice in at least two of those elections 2010 and 2012. I’m not familiar with her first two opponents, so the people who Michele Bachmann is supposed to represent can’t really complain about. Who represents them unless they didn’t vote for her and they would’ve perhaps moved to another House district in Minnesota. Where mental patients and escaped mental patients would be ineligible to run or serve in Congress, but they didn’t do that. But if George Carlin is right and our politicians are us, then America has a lot of problems.

The good news is that Michele Bachmann is leaving the House of Representatives and Congress. And they’ll have one less (let’s say) oddball among them, an eccentric member. And the House Intelligence Committee should actually receive more intelligence in the next Congress with Representative Bachmann no longer among them. Unless Michele is replaced by someone less qualified, which would be a real scary thought. And we’ll have at least one less person claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to national security. And actually believing in what they are saying in Representative Bachmann’s case.

Michele who says big government is a threat to our freedom, but then proposes a constitutional amendment that would outlaw pornography. And give Uncle Sam the ability to control what Americans can do in their homes and personal lives. So there will be one less contradictory member of Congress and one less hypocrite. These are all good things and I’m not complaining.

But as a blogger who sometimes writes satire, this is bad news and its bad news for comedians because a lot of our material comes from statements that Michele Bachmann makes. So hopefully she’ll find a way to stay in the public eye. Perhaps as a verbal punching bag.

Michele Bachmann’s long journey of her long hard-fought presidential campaign of 2011, all four months of it ended. Her presidential campaign was run so badly that she ran for President in 2011 even though the presidential election was in 2012. She ran for President during the wrong year and then ended her campaign in December, 2011 after losing her birth state the Iowa Caucus in 2011. She considered running for U.S. Senate in 2012.

At least Michele would’ve run for Senate in a year where there was a Senate election. Against Senator Amy Klobuchar, which would’ve been Democrats best shot of knocking Michele out of Congress completely. Because she would’ve lost to Senator Klobuchar. But instead Michele had decided to do her constituents and state a favor and not run for reelection. And give Minnesota time to recover for her time in office.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Real Time With Bill Maher: Secularism & Religion

Source:Fox News- Bill O'Reilly vs Bill Maher.

Source:FRS FreeState

"All copyrights belong to Fox New. No copyright infringement intended" 

From Derek Stran 

Air Date: September 20th, 2001

Panelists: Laura Innes, Dennis Prager & Peter Greenburg" 

Source:No Cow Eyes- Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher.

From Now Cow Eyes 

There are advantages and disadvantages of living in a free society like America, or living in an authoritarian state like Russia or China. The question and debate is where would most people be better off: living in a country where people have the right to be themselves and live their own lives, knowing that there going to people who hate other people simply because who they are, their race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, who kill other people simply because of their hate. 

But I think most Americans (and I'm one of them) would rather live here and have that freedom, knowing that someone who has the same freedom that they do, might decide to murder a lot of people simply because they hate them.

My point is terrorism is everywhere and if anything the most free societies in the world are more prone to terrorism and other violence, simply because they don't have the same amount as security, as you would see in a police state, where the country is so secure, that the national government is even scared of it's own people. So I think the question is would rather be completely secure, except perhaps from your own government, or be fairly secure but have the freedom to live your own lives. 

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Slate Magazine: David Weigel: 'Filibuster Reform Kicks Open the Coffin and Returns From the Dead'

Source:Slate Magazine- Richard Cordray is President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Source:FRS FreeState

"So far, it seems like only Greg Sargent and HuffPost are noticing: Democrats are talking about filibuster reform again. The latest progress report comes in this story from Ryan Grim and Jennifer Bendery, who find Democratic senators newly frustrated by their failure to pass bills or confirm nominees, especially CFPB head Richard Cordray. 

Reid indicated Tuesday that he would bring Cordray’s nomination to a vote in July, and a Senate Democratic aide said that vote will come at a time when Reid is ready to launch into a broader fight over all of Obama’s stalled nominees. The “plan is to wait until immigration is complete before engaging in total all-out nom[ination] fight,” said the aide.

What kind of fight are we talking about? It starts with Democrats claiming to hold 51 votes to end the filibuster on executive branch nominees, because Republicans are being unreasonable. Republicans have tried to blunt the attack by proving that, hey, they’re letting people through and you’re not noticing.

“This President is being treated exceptionally fairly,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on the floor this week. “The President has recently submitted a few new nominations.  I know I have been reminding him that we can’t do anything about vacancies without him first sending up nominees. But again, even with the recent nominations, 58 of 82 nominations still have no nominee.”

Basically, Republicans need to lower the temperature and portray Democrats as unreasonable liars. “More executive branch appointments, confirmations, by and large – it’s been handled in a very bipartisan way,” said Mitch McConnell yesterday in his brief weekly on-camera press conference. This is one reason you saw so much harrumphing when Sen. Ted Cruz bragged to Texas conservatives that “squishes” sold him out on his filibuster of the motion to proceed to debate on guns. That fed into the public impression that Republicans were obstructionists – and, well, they are, for lots of good reasons, but it’s tough to sell when something popular is being obstructed.

So Republicans hype the nominees they let through, ask why Obama isn’t sending more nominees, and (as Daniel Foster pointed out in National Review) nominating conservatives for mandatory seats on bipartisan panels, whenever possible. They also express shock that Democrats would change the rules, or think about it.
“The majority leader said earlier this year that he would not change the rules in any extraordinary way, the nuclear option, in this Congress,” said McConnell on Tuesday. “I take him at his word. The assumption is that will not be done.” 


"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) clearly explains how the republican minority was abusing senate rules at historic levels, leaving the democrats no choice but to change those rules and lower the number of votes needed from 60 to 51 to overcome obstructionist filibusters of presidential nominees." 

Source:TDC- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

From TDC 

To be completely fair and to put everything out there and I do agree with probably everything that Majority Leader Harry Reid said in his speech, but Senate Democrats led first by Tom Daschle in 2003-04 and later Harry Reid when he was Senate Minority Leader from 2005-06, did the exact same thing that Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell are doing now, that Republicans are in the minority. They're blocking nominees simply because they don't like them, or are worried that Democrats will get a partisan advantage in the Federal court system. Which is exactly what Senate Democrats first led by Tom Daschle and later Harry Reid, did to then President George W. Bush, when Democrats were in the minority in the mid 2000s. 

I think the only solution here is really clear and I also agree with Leader Reid on this as well. There should be no more filibusters on any executive or judicial nominee, that clears the committee with a majority vote. And in exchange, the minority party led by the Minority Leader can offer amendments to all the nominees that they disapprove of. Amendments like before this nominee is approve, the Senate needs answers to these questions or have these documents turned over first. But those amendments would just need majority approval as well. But at the end of the day, if the President and the Senate has a majority vote for the nominees, they should be approved. 

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

For President: Jimmy Carter 1980 TV Ad- Commander



Source:For President- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia)

Source:FRS FreeState 

"Commander, Jimmy Carter 1980 Presidential Campaign TV Ad, Courtesy Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, www.4President.tv" 

From For President

You do not see Jimmy Carter running on the economy here and telling people about how great the economy is with inflation not being much of a factor or with low-interest rates, or plenty of energy, oil and gas to go around, with low unemployment and high economic growth, with no American hostages around the world, or without Russia on the march in the Middle East, or anything like that. Because the Carter Campaign knew all of that wouldn’t be true and that actually all the opposites to those things were true.

The country was in bad shape in 1980 and back in recession with the American hostages still in Iran. A country that did not want Americans or other Westerners in their country at all. So what the Carter Campaign is trying to do here in this ad campaign is run on what they could and what was left to run on. That the military was stronger, that America was at peace in the world for the most part not involved in any foreign wars. And that even Egypt and Israel were at peace with each other as well. And all of that is true.

Friday, April 12, 2013

NBC News: Update With John Dancy: December, 1979

Source:NBC News- update with John Dancy.
Source:FRS FreeState

"From December 1979, here is a NBC News update.  All copyrights acknowledged, uploaded for historical purposes.  This one features John Dancy talking about Ayatollah Khomeini allowing independent observers to view the hostages in Iran, Jody Powell saying it's a step on the right direction, President Carter overseeing the lighting of small Christmas trees but not the big tree until the hostages come home, (OPEC) oil prices rising by $6 per barrel, rising price of gold.  Ends with a commercial for Geritol."

From Jacky 9BR

1979 was a very rough year as the summer showed with an energy shortage and high inflation and interest rates and so-forth. And this was after the so-called crisis of confidence speech from President Carter in I believe August of that summer. And after the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November that year. 

One of the ironic things about 1979 economically, was that the economy was growing and jobs were created before the recession later that year. But people weren't feeling that because whatever economic growth there was, was getting wiped out by high inflation and interest rates. The economic malaise and the Great Deflation of the 1970s, a combination of high inflation and interest rates, was the worst economy America had at that point at least since the Great Depression.

But the bad economy was obviously bad enough for President Carter and the Democratic Congress then. And probably enough reason for President Carter to lose reelection and for Democrats to at least lose a lot of seats in Congress, even if Republicans didn't win back the House or Senate. The Iranian Hostage Crisis late in 1979 was simply the toper to that. 

The country was still dealing with an energy crisis that a very cold winter and very hot summer that year obviously didn't help. I actually remember a little of that summer. The country was essentially in crisis mode that year and except for what was going in entertainment and sports which was great that year, especially the World Series and Super Bowl which were both classics that were both won by Pittsburgh, there wasn't much to be happy about.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

ABC News: Iran Hostage Crisis: 11/11/1979

Source:ABC News- one of the American hostages in Iran.
Source:FRS FreeState

"The U.S. embassy in Tehran was stormed by students, protestors on November 4, 1979, trapping and holding dozens of people inside."

From ABC News 

What a year and what a way to close out 1979 with a group of Americans being taken hostage in a third-world country in the Middle East.

If I had to guess the worst year in Jimmy Carter's life whether it was in politics, or out of politics. With the economy basically crashing and stagnating with a high combination of high interest rates and inflation. With high unemployment, with those things basically wiping out whatever the economy did as far as economic growth. And then you throw in an energy crisis with a high cost of living. The economic problems that America were facing in the late 1970s actually started in 1978 rather than 1979.

But it's 1979 when they came into full force even leading into a recession. It was just one huge problem after another for the Carter Administration and perhaps too much for any President or administration to deal with especially all at once.

But 1979 and the Iranian Hostage Crisis was great for ABC News. It is where they truly became a national news division that could compete with both CBS News and NBC News.

Monday, April 8, 2013

The New Republic: Cass R. Sunstein: 'Why Paternalism is Our Friend'

Source:The New Republic- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (call it a slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“The nanny state is in the news. A lot of people have been outraged by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to restrict soda sizes, recently overturned by a state court, and some people do not much like his proposal to ban cigarette displays in New York stores. If you share the outrage, you should recognize that various forms of paternalism are all around you, and at least some of them aren’t so bad.

Last year, new government regulations required automobile companies to increase the fuel economy of their cars, to a point where the fleet-wide average must exceed 50 miles per gallon by 2025. True, those regulations will reduce air pollution and promote energy independence, but the majority of the benefits come in the form of gas savings for consumers. For those who abhor paternalism, here’s the problem: Consumers can already buy high MPG cars, and many of them just aren’t doing so, even though they might well save money over the life of the vehicle. If the government is making the fleet a lot more fuel-efficient than consumers demand, is it operating as the national nanny, or the Gasoline Police? Should people be outraged about that?

Paternalism comes in a lot of shapes and sizes, and to come to terms with it, we need to offer a working definition. What seems to unify paternalistic approaches, however diverse, is that government does not believe that people’s choices will promote their welfare, and it is taking steps to influence or alter people’s choices for their own good.”

You can read the rest of Cass Sunstein’s piece at The New Republic.

“New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a two-time Nanny of the Month and 2009’s Nanny of the Year, is back to save us from ourselves yet again!

In order to promote breastfeeding, Bloomberg has ordered all public city hospitals to lock up free samples of baby formula. New mothers who are unable to breastfeed – or simply choose not to – can still get formula, but only after enduring a lecture from a hospital employee on the benefits of the boob over the bottle.

Reason TV’s Kennedy spoke with Susan Burger, a certified lactation consultant, who supports the mayor’s initiative on the grounds that “the real intent of that law is to protect breastfeeding mothers [and] their freedom of choice to breastfeed.” 

Source:Reason Magazine- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (call it a slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg. 

From Reason Magazine 

Before I get into what I really want to talk about, I’m going to start this post off with a question: What the hell happened to the New Republic? Because before they got new management and Chris Hughes became its new editor, this was a real liberal democratic magazine. The official liberal democratic magazine in America that had a healthy skepticism about governmental power. That all seems to be gone now and now they are sounding like defenders of the state, especially the nanny state.

The current version of The New Republic seems to believe  that freedom is dangerous and that it shouldn’t be our goal or the job of government to protect our freedom, but literally to protect the people, as if we are morons or little children and can’t do that for ourselves. And even if that means protecting people from themselves and even locking them up for their own good when they make choices that aren’t in their best interest.

Reading the New Republic now, except for Jeff Rosen who is a real Liberal, is like reading the The Nation magazine or the AlterNet, or listening to the political commentary on MSNBC: it’s “big government knows best and has all the answers and individual freedom and choice are dangerous”.

They are paternalists on the far-left, people who I really don’t even call Progressives any more but paternalists or prohibitionists. Prohibition is a statist idea by the way, but I generally what I call people who think like this whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right, are nanny statists or nanny staters. People who believe that it’s the job of government to protect people even from themselves.

And when you combine paternalism when it comes to personal or social issues with socialism as it relates to economic policy and you believe in things like nationalizing the healthcare and health insurance systems, as well as the retirement system and perhaps even the banking system, maybe even the energy industry and you combine that nanny statism on social issues, you really have what looks like communism. You got a King Kong size big government there to protect people from themselves: “Because big government is our friend and freedom and freedom of choice is our enemy”. That it’s not big government that’s the problem, but that big government is our friend and should direct how we live our own lives.

Paternalism whether it comes from the Far-Left as it relates to the War on Drugs, alcohol prohibition, tobacco, junk food, soft drinks, or whether it comes from the Far-Right as it relates to violent video games or pornography, or trying to outlaw pre-marital sex, or adultery or divorce, it doesn’t work. Because if people want to do things bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it and damn the consequences.

One of the reasons why we have taxes and regulations in America is to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Not to manage people’s lives for them. That if you want people to make healthy choices, you subsidize that and penalize them when they make unhealthy choices.

To respond to the argument that Cass Sunstein is trying to make which really sounds like he’s trying to pick up the pieces for the nanny state proponents: the regulations he’s talking about are regulations regarding businesses, not individuals. Businesses are also not allowed to hire people to whack out the competition for them. That’s also for the welfare for the general public, but that doesn’t help his case.

ABC News: 'Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (ABC News Report From 12/3/1979)'

Source:ABC News- James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) President of the United States (1977-81)
Source:FRS FreeState 

"30 days into the hostage crisis, U.S. tries to get the shah out of America." 

From ABC News

The 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis made ABC News. Similar to how Monday Night Football and perhaps Monday Night Baseball and all of their great college football coverage starting in the 1970s, made ABC Sports. 

Frank Reynolds, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, even though they were all very good at their jobs pre-1979, became national network stars for ABC and not just ABC News, because of their great coverage of this story. The Iranian Hostage Crisis, which I believe at least believe was the unofficial start of the so-called War on Terror. They had special reports on this story every night at least early on the story. That show later becomes Nightline with Ted Koppel. Which with him is one of the best news shows of all-time. Too bad it was only a half-hour. 

I don't think you can blame ABC News for Jimmy Carter losing reelection in 1980. But the fact that they dedicated so much of their coverage and resources to a story about American hostages being held hostage halfway around the world by Islamic Theocratic terrorists certainly didn't help President Carter. Because millions of Americans watched ABC News every night to get the latest news on that story especially if one of their relatives was being held hostage. And they were right cover that story as tightly and closely as they did. Because it was almost as if America was at war with Iran to free our people from there and to bring them home. And you had the relatives of these hostages constantly worried about the health and safety of their relatives that were being held hostage.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Al Jazeera: 'Operation Eagle Claw's Anniversary'


Source:Al Jazeera- Barry Rosen was one of the American hostages that was held by the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979-80.

Source:FRS FreeState

"It has been 30 years since the US undertook Operation Eagle Claw - a failed military mission to rescue 52 diplomats and embassy staff taken hostage in Iran.

About 90 commandoes, eight helicopters and six aircraft landed in the Iranian desert on the first stage of the mission, but an accident resulted in the deaths of eight soldiers and it was called off.

The hostage crisis lasted for another year after "divine intervention", as some Iranians say, stopped Eagle Claw. 

The anniversary comes amid rising tensions between the US and Iran. 

Al Jazeera Alireza Ronaghi reports from Tehran." 


"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], "The Peninsula")[3] is a state-owned Arabic-language international radio and TV broadcaster of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[citation needed] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being "Qatari propaganda"

From Wikipedia

This rescue attempt not working was a disaster for the Carter Administration for a few reasons: 

One, it showed that they were not prepared and weren't sure who they were dealing with and the area they were dealing with to have a helicopter crash like that, because it lacked the fuel and that they were simply just weak even compared with a group of Islamic terrorist thugs holding a group of American diplomats. And keeping the greatest superpower in the world in crisis mode like that. Seeming not to know what to do and how to handle the situation. To go on top of a  pretty bad economy, the worst economy since the Great Depression.

With high unemployment, high prices, high interest rates and inflation, an energy shortage, America was already in bad shape economically and didn't need anything else to go on top of what they were already going through. The Iranian Hostage Crisis along with the bad economy would be something that Ronald Reagan and Congressional Republicans as well as the Republican National Committee would be able to use against President Carter and Congressional Democrats for the entire 1980 campaign, because the hostages weren't coming home before the general elections. 

I do give credit to President Carter for simply attempting the mission and looking for ways to quickly free the American hostages. One of those A for effort decisions. But an F as far as how the mission was planned and executed.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The New Republic: Chuck Thompson: ‘Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.’

Source:The New Republic- don’t mess with Texas. We’re armed and dangerous. We also ain’t too bright and don’t always know what we’re doing. LOL
Source:FRS FreeState

“In the wake of news that more than 80,000 people have signed an online White House petition asking permission for Texas to leave the Union, a single grave concern has united the minds of Americans of all political colors: If the state secedes, where are we going to get our NFL-caliber wide receivers?

As a recent student not just of secession, but the traditionally Southern mindset that drives it in this country (similar petitions for Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina have all topped 20,000 signatures), let me be the first to say to the aggrieved liberal community: relax. No one is talking about building a Berlin Wall around the upside-down pistol grip part of Texas.

Texans may be stubborn, but they ain’t stupid. In the event of secession, mutually beneficial treaties would be drawn up between the United States and newly formed Texas Republic, ensuring both sides get what they need.”


“Rick Perry on Texas’s right to secede from the US”

Source:The Centrist Word- Hardball With Chris Matthews?

From The Centrist Word 

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas even seceding from the United States, who the hell needs them. (From my point of view) They need us so they can fund their own roads and for all that welfare insurance they get from taxpayers in wealthy states. So their people don’t starve and so their kids can go to school and so-forth.

I mean do we really need a Alabama and a Mississippi in the union, couldn’t we get by with just one of them, or how about they combine and become one state. And we would have on less ignorant state in the union.

And do we really need to Carolinas and two Virginia’s? I’m not looking for Virginia to leave the union, but do we need a Virginia and a West Virginia.

West Virginia, is not seceding. Even they know like the rest of the country that they need America more than America needs them. But South Carolina might be a different story and the idea of an African-American, not only being elected, but reelected President of the United States, is appalling to a certain percentage of South Carolinians. And they may leave the country, some of the nuts in that state.

My whole point about this is that the people in these states that are considering leaving the United States, good riddance, as far as I’m concern. And maybe they can move somewhere and start some new Confederate Republic like they tried in the 1860s. And even if these states were to secede, which will never happen because even these states have enough intelligent people in them to know better. People who were perhaps educated outside of these states, to understand that they need America more than we need them.

As much as Southern Neo-Confederates may bash the U.S. Government and public assistance, a lot of their people still need that just to get by. Which makes this whole discussion a little ridiculous, because this will never happen.

Texas, won’t leave the United States, they have the most uninsured people in the country per-capita. They need us again for the public assistance that they collect. America, needs Texas to become energy independent and get off of foreign oil. Which would be a boom for both our economy and foreign policy. But if these third-world American states in the Southeast want to take a hike, I’ll help them pack. And see how well they can do on their own.

Friday, October 12, 2012

VOA News: 'Activists Seeking to Capitalize on Occupy Protests'

Source:VOA News- a woman who was interviewed for this piece.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"As anti-Wall Street demonstrations continue in New York City, the growing furor over bank bailouts and the weak economy continues to spread throughout the United States.  In Boston, dozens of protestors were arrested for refusing to leave Dewey Park. In Washington DC, protestors were hoping to have their permit renewed to allow demonstrations to continue.  The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations there have given a boost to several other local campaigns looking to draw national attention to their causes." 

From VOA News 

“Vijay Prashad: With the 99% slogan, the Occupy movement raises the issue of inequality in a profound way” 

Source:The Real News- New Leftists occupying New York City.

From The Real News 

"Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress. It is the largest[1][2][3] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people.

VOA was established in 1942,[6] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415)[7] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[8] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.[9][10]

Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda."  

From Wikipedia 

I believe at least a majority of the country supports these protests on Wall Street all across the political spectrum. Wall Street is not very popular with any political party right now, except for maybe the Libertarian Party and Tea Party. That's why we are seeing large protests all across the country against Wall Street and even corporate America to a certain extent. I wish these protests would reach Congress as well, (both in the House and Senate) to get them to start moving and legislating and even coming together.

Occupying Congress and the members who are bought by Wall Street, at least in too many cases, would make more sense, then to simply try to occupy buildings where a lot of investing is done. 

I mean if this was a real occupy movement (Left or Right) and this time it is certainly coming the Left (if not Far-Left) you go where the money is. (So to speak) And occupy the people who take the money from the business's and investors you are say are destroying the American middle class. I know that sounds like commonsense and what does that have to do with American politics, probably nothing, but something to think about. 

And hopefully OWS will at some point, with a 13% approval rating of Congress (and with the people who officially who approve of Congress either dead, living in Mongolia, or in a coma) there's plenty incentive for them to do that, if they have the guts to take on their political bases. 468 members of Congress (between the House and Senate) are up for reelection in 2012. 

And if 2012 is another anti-incumbent election, then a lot of members of Congress (in both parties) could be looking for new jobs after election night. Seriously, the scariest thought for any career politician, perhaps especially someone in Congress, is looking for a new job, Which is why pissed off Americans should be scaring the hell out of them right now.  But right now they are focused on Wall Street so I'll focus there. What these protesters have in common is that they are independent. Meaning they aren't Democrats or Republicans in a lot of cases. 

Not one national organization is running these protests and putting them together. But a bunch of different political organizations perhaps working together. And there's also political diversity within this movement: Socialists, Libertarians, and some Liberals are all part of this movement, perhaps even some true Conservatives, who are fed up with bailouts corporate capitalism and want to see change in our economic system.A diverse somewhat American melting pot of political philosophy. Who have found at least one issue to not try to beat the heads of people they normally don't agree with.

The political diversity in this movement is positive for them in this sense, it indicates that there's broad support for it. That there's not one political party behind it and that the country wants to see real change in our country and our economic system. But it's a problem as well, because there isn't a consensus in what change and reform should look like. 

Conservatives and libertarians would like to see government less involved with our economic system spending less and downsizing and less regulation and no more bailouts and tax less. Socialists obviously are the complete opposite of that and perhaps would like to nationalize some industries, especially banking and health care. 

Liberals would like to see reform with our entitlements, cutting the deficit and debt, infrastructure investment, tax cuts for the middle class, expand free trade. And bring our foreign troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. 

There's significant support for what Conservatives, Libertarians and Liberals want to do. Socialists have the most ambitious agenda of everyone, perhaps put together. Having a political coalition of Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and Socialists is not an odd couple. More like a melting pot put into a big stew, that makes people want to vomit after eating it. (Or go to jail for their food instead)

Socialists want to return America to the 1950s as far as tax policy. Tax rates starting at 25% and going up to 90% and people like socialist economist Richard Wolfe have been very upfront about that. As well as nationalizing our healthcare system, nationalizing our higher education system. With the Federal Government now paying for everyone to go to college at taxpayer expense. As well as other things. If you think America has a big government now, put Socialists in charge and this government would look like a midget that is shrinking in comparison to what they want to do.

There's potential for a movement here as being against something, but that's the easy part. The question is what do you do instead, what do you and what do you replace it with. And all of these political factions have their own agendas that they would like to see pass. 

This is not a governing coalition (more like a prison riot made up of all certain types of gangs) but more like a protest coalition similar to what the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s. So I don't see a consensus right now in what to do instead after the partnership between Wall Street and the Federal Government is broken up. 

And that can only happen with either getting private money out of Federal politics. Can't be done without a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court would throw it out. The only other alternative I see is full- disclosure which is very difficult to pass. Because it would require public officials to release to the public who they deal with and how much money they receive from them. Asking a career politician to release their political contributors, is like asking an obese food addict to give up eating cold turkey (including turkey) for a week straight without supervision. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out.

Until there's a movement that has broad support in not only what its against, but what they want to instead and can get elected and reelected and puts proposals on the table that becomes law, We are stuck where we are in gridlock, with a do nothing Congress with its first eye always on the next election and how to get their base to the polls and votes for them. 

But look at the bright side: when things aren't going well for you and you are in trouble, you'll always have Congress to make fun of and say: "At least I'm not as bad as those people and know how to get my work done, because I have to work for a living." 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Associated Press: Raw Video- 'Judge Denies Request to Stop Anti-Muslim Trailer'


Source:Associated Press- actress Cindy Lee Garcia filed this lawsuit and loss.
Source:FRS FreeState 

“A judge has denied a request seeking to force YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim film trailer that has been blamed for causing deadly violence in the Muslim World. The actress who filed the lawsuit calls the film ‘degrading’.”


If this actress in this movie was misled about this movie that she was in, then she probably has a good case, that she should take to court and sue the makers of this movie over that and be rewarded compensation for that. Assuming she didn’t know that she was going to be part of an Islamaphobic film and I don’t know if she was misled or not. But as far as getting the movie shut down, over that, that simply won’t happen.

We have a First Amendment in this country that protects Freedom of Speech, which movies would clearly come under, because they clearly have speech in them. And when they are in documentary form, they are delivering a message and perhaps intended to inform people about the subject matter that the film is covering.

Seeing speech that you love or hate, is part of sharing and living in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen million people. We can control what we see and hear, but can’t shut people up on our own.

Suing people might be part of the American Way in America, but free speech is clearly the American Way and has to be protected. Whether its peaceful speech, hate speech, accurate speech or inaccurate speech. It’s not the job of government to protect us from what they may see as dangerous speech. We have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Associated Press: Warren Levinson- 'Occupy Wall Street: One Year Later


Source:Associated Press- Pete Dietro used to be one of the activists for Occupy Wall Street.

Source:FRS FreeState

“To mark the one-year-anniversary of the Occupy movement on September 17th , current and former members talk to the Associated Press about the changes they see in the organization.”

From the Associated Press 

Occupy Wall Street started off as a I guess left-wing social democratic (even though there are Communists who part of OWS) movement a year ago, that was pissed off at Wall Street and corporate America as a whole. And seeing them get bail outs while they saw the rest of the country as they put it got austerity and decided that they were: “Mad as Hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.” Or perhaps even stronger language than that)

OWS was a very focused and fairly disciplined movement, especially for Socialists who aren’t known for discipline or even believing in it. And that’s how they were successful in its first few months: “This is what’s bad, we have the people with us and we need to stop this.”

And then OWS could go about fixing the problems, instead of making them worst and were successful in not only getting attention from the national media, but getting people behind them as well. Even Democrats not so much the leadership, but some Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate who are so far to the Left as they are and also have a hard time seeing the center and perhaps center-left with a telescope, such as OWS. And they even managed to not only communicate what they believe is wrong with the country, as far as the economy, but we’re able to start to put together their own social democratic agenda.

OWS moves from talking about what they don’t like about capitalism and corporate America, to preserving social insurance programs, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what they would do about the “too big to fail banks”, breaking them up or nationalizing them. As well as things like universal higher education, protecting organize labor and debt forgiveness for students and other things.

But now OWS seems to be about complaining about ever society ill that the country seems to be going through. Jump from one problem to another without any real focus or discipline and living up to one of the negative stereotypes that Socialists have. They’ve become like kids who when they get a new toy, they see something else that they want and now have lost all interest in their first toy. They’ve become like children.

That’s how Occupy Wall Street started out, but by the late spring and summer they had already lost whatever momentum they were able to build up from the fall and winter of 2011-12 and started looking more like rioters or anarchists and with all the arrests they started piling up. They were like fireworks that are lighted on July Fourth, that burn out with in minutes. And started piling up arrests at their rallies and events. And once a movement gets to that point, its hard for Americans who unless they are die-hard supporters of you, to take you seriously: “Why should I pay attention to them. They are just some whacked-out fringe: why should I take them seriously.”

And because of this, the Democratic Leadership, has never really gotten behind them. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats understand that there’s a certain responsibility to being part of a major political party. That you can’t afford to look like you are part of a fringe movement, because you are supposed to be the adults in the room.

Right now in America again unless you are a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, they look like some whacked-out Far-Left socialist party, that are champions of big government and high taxes, which hasn’t played well in this country for a long time.

And even worst, OWS looks like anarchists people who are so out of their minds they aren’t capable of having an adult conversation, which is why they are struggling to be taken seriously.Even fringe movements need ties and have a base with reality and how the world works, so they can be as successful as possible. Even if it comes off as stale or old school to their supporters.