RT America: Thom Hartmann- 'No Mercy For American Convicts'

Source:RT America- Left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, appearing on President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia

"Reeducation vs. lock-up: what's right for American convicts? In Europe authorities work to reeducate and reintegrate the prison populations. In the US however authorizes prefer to lock them up for as long as possible. Radio Host Thom Hartmann argued that historically, due to the massive size of the United States, people were viewed as disposable, whereas in Europe people were more closely connected to one another because of the denser population centers. Today the US is confronting this issue head-on as US population density increases.  The US is large and hosts at least six distinct cultures, said Hartmann, which makes reform even more challenging."

From RT America

As long as you have what's called a corrections system, then that should mean something. That if you send people to prison for years and decades at a time, but you know they are one day going to get out because they do their time and don't get additional time by avoiding committing more felony's in prison, then we should make the term and system and corrections system actually mean that.

Otherwise we no longer have a corrections system, but a prison system or a human warehouse system. Where we just send people way to warehouse them do our best to make sure their human needs are met at tax payer expense at the expense of people who work for a living. And have made good decisions with their lives and avoided going to prison. We have now approaching 2M people in the corrections system in America.

And there are several factors we have so many prison inmates: our education system isn't doing a good enough job preparing our young people for life as adults. These kids don't get the education they need to survive in life and prosper in a legal way. So they end up hanging out with the wrong crowd, organized crime getting into trouble.

If you look at our prison inmate population, maybe half of them even graduated high school, very few have even ever been to college. We don't do a very good job of rehabilitating our prison inmates or even make the effort in some cases. San Quentin Prison in California is an example of a prison that tries to rehabilitate its inmates and they've had some success. And they ned up in prison with very little if any education and leave prison with the same situation.

What we should be doing is several things: I'm not making the argument for being soft on crime, or giving convicted felons amnesty and slapping them on the hand and hoping they don't do it again. It's called crime and punishment and prison for a reason. And prison inmates need to know they are in prison and why they are there. They shouldn't feel like they are getting a free vacation or going to summer camp for free either.

But having said all that it needs to be a productive experience for, the tax payers who are putting up the bills and deserve to have some security in their lives, the prison staff to make their jobs a little less dangerous. But also for the Prison Inmates so they know why they are there and get themselves the skills that they need to avoid coming back to prison in the future, by putting an end to their criminal careers. And having the skills that they need to get a good job and live a productive life legally in the free world. Something like 2/3 of all of our prison inmates end up back in prison. About the same percentage end up being released from prison while they are still living. We can do much better with our corrections system.

National Homeless: 'National Coalition For The Homeless'

Source:National Homeless- from a documentary about this organization.

"The National Coalition for the Homeless, founded in 1982, is a national network of people who are currently experiencing or who have experienced homelessness, activists and advocates, community-based and faith-based service providers, and others committed to a single mission. That mission, our common bond, is to end homelessness. We are committed to creating the systemic and attitudinal changes necessary to prevent and end homelessness. At the same time, we work to meet the immediate needs of people who are currently experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of doing so. We take as our first principle of practice that people who are currently experiencing homelessness or have formerly experienced homelessness must be actively involved in all of our work." 

From National Homeless

Now that we are just four days away from another Christmas and with an improving economy, Christmas will be a lot better for more families in America, but we'll still have people living on the streets, wondering where their next meal is coming from, addicted to alcohol, and other drugs, having mental issues, unemployed, etc. And all going through these things on the street, because they don't have a job and they can't afford a place to live. 

So if homeless people are lucky, they'll be able to stay in a homeless shelter for maybe one or two nights. And get enough food to eat while they are there, but then going through the same experiences all over again, that they were going through before they went to the shelter. 

Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.”

From Invest Bliguru 

I believe this is from the Free To Choose episode talking about the dangers of a big, centralized, national government, and what happens when you centralize a lot of national government power into on capital city.

Source:Professor Milton Friedman- during his 1979-80 PBS documentary Free To Choose.

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: ‘That if You Want More Jobs, the Government Should Get Out of the Way’

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Leon Botstein moderated this debate.

 

“As Mr. Botstein frames the question, “We are in a recession. Some people consider it a contained depression, perhaps the worst economic period since the Great Depression. And we don’t really know what to do about it.” Mr. Buckley thinks he does: “Bring back full employment by getting government out of the way.” After all, “A lot of people say they can’t build houses; they can’t afford the interest. Why is interest so high? Because of inflation. Who causes inflation? Only the government can cause inflation. The private sector has never discovered how to do it.” Mr. McGovern is equally sure that, say, the savings-and-loan crisis “is not the result of too much government intervention … Rather it is the opposite: the result of too little regulation and monitoring that permitted irresponsible S&L managers to rob that industry and the American public.” Mrs. Schlafly takes up the cudgels against overreaching legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the latest Clean Air Act, and we’re off on a vigorous exploration of what government can and can’t reasonably do.” 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Episode FLS112, Recorded on March 26, 1992

Guests: Richard K. Armey, Phyllis Schlafly, Herbert Stein, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Robert Eisner, Michael E. Kinsley, Hyman P. Minsky

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

This looks like a debate between economic libertarians and people who would be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists everywhere else in the developed world, but since America is so special, they are called Liberals here. Because Americans leftists tend to be scared to death of the s-word. 

On the Right, you get government is already doing too much and what we need to do now is cut government, regulations, and taxes, and expand free trade in America. 

On the Left and actual Left (not liberal) you get government isn’t doing or taxing nearly enough and should be doing a lot more of that to meet the needs of the people and expand the economy. 

This is sort of a traditional left-wing vs right-wing debate in America about the role of government, that was brought to you by Firing Line With William F. Buckley.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

House Republicans: 'The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act'

Source:House Republicans- House Republicans on the Budget Committee talking about their government reform plan.

"The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act - Rep. Scott Garrett" 

From House Republicans

I'm actually disappointed in this new House GOP budget reform plan. And I know to be disappointed you have to expect something good that didn't happen. Like getting a new job, buying a house, whatever the case is or something awful happens to you that you weren't expecting like your kid being arrested or someone not able to come to your party or something. 

I would never vote for any of the House GOP budget plans, because it would force a lot of people who are unfortunately dependent on these Federal programs to drop out and go to the private sector. Instead of giving them the freedom of choice to do that for themselves. But I do like the new line-item-veto plan that was proposed by Representative Paul Ryan and Representative Chris Van Hollen (the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) that I support. But thats it from the House GOP. And I like the idea of them trying to force the Federal Government to pay for all of its operations. 

I just wish House Republicans and broader Republican Party believed in fiscal responsibility during the Bush Administration when they controlled Congress and not just the House. And then they would have some credibility and we probably wouldn't be in the budget mess that we are in today, ut thats a different story. I do give them credit for at least being bold with the Ryan Plan, even though I would never vote for it. But this new plan is not only not a good idea, bringing all of these failing Federal agency's under the control of the Federal Government, but it's not bold either. 

The U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt right now because instead of being run as an independent service, it has to ask Congress when it can go to the bathroom. And thats just one example. When they can blow their noses, eat lunch. Well, that might be slight exaggerations, but it's not run like the non-profit company that it should be 

If you want to win support of the American people, be big and think big by going big, while at the same time doing it in an intelligent matter. Don't stand in front of mice thinking you're the largest man in the world, when you're only 5'7 and way 150 pounds. Don't come out with broad reforms at one point without thinking them through like turning Medicare into a voucher system and then the next plan bring more control back to the Federal Government. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: George Roche & Friedrich Hayek- 'Is There a Case for Private Property?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- economist Friedrich Hayek, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1977.

"Episode S0300, Recorded on November 7, 1977. Guests: Friedrich A. von (Friedrich August) Hayek, George Roche, Jeff Greenfield. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"A splendid hour, spent more on political philosophy than on technical economics, with the author of The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. FAH: "Few are ready to recognize that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction to the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." ... "It is important not to confuse opposition against [centralized] planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude.... In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing." ... "If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty. And, in turn, liberty of the individual would, of course, make complete foresight impossible. Liberty is essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable.... Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen." 

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know why property rights in any free society are so important, you should first think of what a country or world would look like without property rights. (That would mean the State owns everything) 

I mean think about it, without property rights, the State would control everything. You would live in an apartment or house, probably an apartment, I mean think about life in the Soviet Union of Russia, where the State would own the place you live at, you're basically just a renter. The State owns the apartment building so they could come in at will. Sort of how corrections officers can enter inmates cells at will. The State wouldn't need search warrants because they own the property. 

The car or truck you drive, if you're lucky enough to have one, would be own by the State. You couldn't run your own business, because the State would own that and the only new business's that would pop up, would be new business's set up by the State, even if you're more qualified to run a business than the State. 

No such thing as private property means no such thing as individual liberty, because the State would own everything. No such thing as political liberty, because again the State would own the political parties. And you could only vote for political candidates approved by the State. 

Thats why property rights are so important, you can't have a liberal democracy without them. The ability of people to control how they move and where, where they live, how they get around, who they work for if anyone or do they run and own their own business. Without property rights, the State can come in and take things from us at will. 

Paul Ryan: 'Paul Ryan & Chris Van Hollen Advance Bipartisan Budget Reform'

Source:U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) and U.S. Representative Chis Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee.

"In a bipartisan effort, leaders from the House Budget Committee introduced the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act earlier today. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., joined MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss this effort to target wasteful Washington spending." 

From Paul Ryan

Is the line-item Veto the silver bullet to fixing our debt and deficit issues? Of course not, even if we were able to eliminate all Congressional earmarks because those earmarks only in Washington would 20B$ be only but compared with a Federal budget of 3.7T$. 20B$. Only in Washington in the larger scheme of things, does 20 billion dollars a year qualify as only. (Imagine if members of Congress had to work for a living) 

But what the line-item veto does is help with our debt and deficit because it could eliminate up to 20B$ a year in wasteful spending. And thats just in the Federal budget alone, Congress appropriates all the time out in emergency. They'll appropriate under in emergency just because they don't feel like paying for things. 

And what a Line Item Veto would do is empower the President, whoever the President is to eliminate things from spending bills that are wasteful and have nothing to do with the spending bill that it's attached to. 

A line-item veto is not good enough, we also need earmark reform as well, getting rid of earmarks that have nothing to do with the bills that are attached to. 

As well as earmark disclosure, meaning a member of Congress that authors an earmark, their name would be on the earmark that they are offering and where the earmark is going and what it's for. 

Along with forcing all earmarks to come under the PAGO policy including in emergency bills. Meaning that all earmarks would have to be paid for. These things alone could save the Federal Government and taxpayers 20B$ a year. 

Glad to see Representative Ryan and Representative Van Hollen (Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) working together. Hopefully their roles will be reversed in the next Congress, which is a different debate. Actually, working together on something because they've already proven that they are great at taking the opposite position. So to see them actually work together, shows that there's hope for bi partisanship in Congress and that it isn't dead yet.

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Commonsense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival.   

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's game: 1972 Miami Dolphins

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins FB Larry Czonka.

Source:The Daily Post 

"NFL America's Game Super Bowl 7 Champions 1972 Dolphins." 

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins DT Manny Fernandez.

From David Stronach

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. 

The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. 

Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions.

The Federalist Society: 'Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring'

Source:The Federalist Society- holding an event about the Arab Spring, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

"The Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring" on Saturday, November 12, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention.

Environmental Law: Property Rights: The Forgotten Spark of the Arab Spring

10:45 a.m. -- 12:15 p.m.

State Room - Overflow: Senate Room

--Mr. Hernando de Soto, President, Institute for Liberty and Democracy

--Prof. Steven J. Eagle, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

--Prof. John D. Echeverria, Professor of Law and Acting Director Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School

--Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law

--Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit... 

From The Federalist Society

Property rights are essential in a democracy, especially in a liberal democracy, because it's one way people can limit the power of government, because they have property and they can limit what government can do to them. 

In America government has to have permission under law and the U.S. Constitution to enter or take property from individuals. Without property rights the State would essentially own everything. Even the Communist Republic of Cuba has now recognized the need for property rights in a functioning society. 

Jeremy Arendt: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: 'The Tyranny of Control (1980)'

Source:Jeremy Arendt- Donald Rumseld: former U.S. Representative (Republican, Illinois) and Secretary of Defense (President Gearld R. Ford) 

"Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by "approved" or "authorized." Friedman shows how "established" industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don't control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S."

From Jeremy Arendt

If you look at the Federal Government in America and its size post-World War II, we've generally spent around 20% of our GDP on the public sector. Defense, law enforcement, foreign affairs, social welfare, etc. 

And then you add state and local governments, government total in America at all three levels have spent around 30-35 of our GDP on the public sector. 

And then you go to the Federal, or national government's in Europe, except for the United Kingdom, which basically has basically unitarian government without much if any provincial or local governments, they generally spend around 50-60% of their GDP on their public sectors. And thats just as their national level. 

So the the role of government has gotten bigger in America than it was before the Great Depression, but if you're someone who believes in individual freedom and freedom of choice, which I do, I still rather live in America, than anywhere else even in the developed world.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

John Boehner: 'GOP Highlights American Energy Production & Infrastructure Jobs Bill'

Source:Speaker of the House John Boehner- and company talking about their jobs bill.

"At a press conference, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) announced that House Republicans will soon unveil legislation -- the American Jobs & Infrastructure Act -- linking expanded American energy production to high-priority infrastructure projects." 

From John Boehner

Yesterday the House Republican Leadership introduced their first serious jobs bill in this Congress. Introducing an energy and infrastructure investment plan that has bipartisan support in the House. That would open more parts of the country to energy production including, oil production. And use the revenue thats collected from that through leases to pay for infrastructure investment. So we would be able to put more people to work in the oil and gas industry as well as construction workers in the construction industry. 

Now, I would expand this plan to include other energy sectors, natural Gas, electricity, nuclear power, solar, wind put everything on the table. Not pick winners and losers and use the lease revenue from these energy sectors, to pay for infrastructure investment in the short-term, but also create a National Infrastructure Bank to fund our infrastructure investment for the long-term, which would also help our manufacturing industry in the short and long-term as well. Because of the equipment that it would take to do all of this work. 

But this plan that the House GOP Leadership introduced Thursday, is a good first step. And something that should be considered by the Democratic Senate and White House. And at least House Republicans are finally taking the need for infrastructure investment in America seriously and even proposing their own plan. Perhaps they are hearing this from their constituents and perhaps even construction company's in their own House districts, that there's a lot of work to do here and we would like to be hired to do this work. 

Forbes Magazine: Jim Yong Kim- 'The Next Phase of Health Care Reform: Providing Low Cost, High Quality Medical Care'

Source:Forbes Magazine- Jim Yong Kim: President of Dartmouth College.

"To save costs, we need to fix the delivery system says Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim.  And he's got a plan to do just that." 

From Forbes Magazine

The 2010 Affordable Care Act wasn't about healthcare reform in general, but about health insurance expansion. And regulating the private health insurance industry with a Patients Bill of Rights. And these things will help bring down our healthcare costs with everybody contributing to their own healthcare costs. As well as some reforms in Medicare and some other reforms in Medicaid. Which were less positive because it made millions of more people eligible for Medicaid. But without paying for it leaving the bill to the states which they aren't going to like. 

So the first round of healthcare reform (as I call it) was about health insurance expansion and regulation. Not so much about bringing down our long term healthcare costs. And that gets to things like expanding healthcare, more hospitals and clinics, taking better care of ourselves as a country, so we don't have to consume as much healthcare in the future and only getting Healthcare that we actually need to stay healthy and survive. And discourage things that are more on the luxury side of healthcare, like certain plastic surgery's, massages, that sort of thing. 

The Federalist Society: 'A Federal Sunset Law'

Source:The Federalist Society- Professor William Eskridge: Yale Law School.

"In the years since the New Deal and the Great Society, a huge number of federal statutes have been enacted into law and have become permanent fixtures of American life.  Repealing these statutes is politically impossible because one needs a majority of the House of Representatives, sixty votes in the Senate, and the President's signature to repeal a law.  The cumbersome mechanisms of bicameralism, the Senate filibuster, and the President's veto, which were meant to ensure limited government, now serve the wholly different purpose of entrenching big government by making federal laws immortal.  This panel will consider whether Congress should pass a general federal sunset law that would require that most federal statutes sunset after ten or twenty years unless they are re-enacted by the two Houses of Congress together with the President.  Arguably, such a law would return us to the Framers' vision where small government was entrenched instead of big government being entrenched.  Many states have adopted sunset laws, and maybe now it is time for the federal government to follow their good example.  Thomas Jefferson once proposed that even the Constitution itself should sunset every 20 years -- an idea that James Madison wisely rejected.  But even if the Constitution ought not to sunset and even if a few landmark laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ought not to sunset, surely most federal laws ought to be periodically in need of being reenacted.  This panel will examine that question.This panel was featured as Showcase Panel IV at the 2011 National Lawyers Convention on November 12, 2011." 

From The Federalist Society

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) deliberately designed a governmental system and Federal Government to make it difficult for them to pass laws. And more difficult to make the Federal Government more powerful and intrusive, with things like the the three co-equal branches, executive, that carries out laws and can propose them. 

Congress that writes laws and oversees the other two branches including themselves. The Judicial Branch that obviously decides cases in the criminal and civil justice system. And sometimes passes on cases as well as ruling on the constitutionality of laws that the executive and legislative passes. And of course forcing the executive and legislative branches to work together to pass new laws. 

This is what checks and balances are about to make it difficult to pass laws and even harder to pass laws. Because even if one party controls both the White House and Congress, if the opposition party has enough Senate seats, they can block legislation that the Senate majority party is trying to pass. And even if one party controls both the Administration and Congress, to amend our Constitution, that takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as 67 states to pass and amend the Constitution. 

James Michi: 'Glenn Beck-Ben Franklin Health Care'

Source:James Michi- Glenn Beck talking about Ben Franklin.

"Ben Franklin and Health care was not ever around government it was all private. its unconstitutional in the eyes of our founding fathers! gov must get out of health care  NOW!" 

From James Michi

Glen Beck using Ben Franklin to make his case that health care reform at least at the Federal level is unconstitutional, by saying that Ben Franklin's vision of health care was to raise private money to build hospitals. And apparently thats all it takes to give people more health care in America. And that government at least not the Federal Government has no role in it. Is interesting but not accurate. 

Another thing that Glen Beck uses to make his case is the U.S. Constitution and says that no where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the Federal Government authority in health care. Not to expand health insurance or expand health care by financing through taxes, community health centers, and other infrastructure, which were part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. 

What Mr. Beck doesn't mention is the Commerce Clause and the Welfare Clause, which clearly gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which health care clearly is. So that means the Federal Government can regulate both hospitals and health insurers. 

The Welfare Clause gives the Federal Government the authority to look after the welfare of its citizens. Which means things like Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid are constitutional, to help people to are out-of-work, get by while they are looking for another job, health insurance for people who can't afford it who live in poverty. 

I'm not making these points as someone who''s a believer in Big Government, because I'm not. Just to say that just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean exactly its unconstitutional, it just might be a bad idea instead. I don't disagree with aspects of the New Deal and Great Society, because I believe they are unconstitutional, but I disagree with how they were set up and managed. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Are Medical Costs Controllable (1994)?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Dr. Charles Sanders, participating in this Firing Line debate.

"Episode S0999, Recorded on January 26, 1994. Guests: Richard Janeway, J. Ward Kurad, Charles A. Sanders. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Yes!, is our guests' resounding answer to the title question--and without

unmaking what is generally agreed to be the world's finest health-care system (CS: "One

of the best things about the Canadian system is the proximity to the U.S."). Drs. Sanders

and Janeway emphasize portability (the ability to retain your medical insurance if you

change jobs) and insurance for catastrophic illness--which, says Dr. Janeway, could be

taken care of for "not a huge amount of cost to the American public per year." Dr.

Kurad--who was driven out of active practice of his specialty by "the paperwork mill

and the hassles with insurance and Medicare"--tells persuasively what business can do to

cut the red tape." 

From the Hoover Institution 

In 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) pushed for health care reform and seeing that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. And two of the areas that they focused on where quality, affordable coverage and controlling medical costs. 

Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and House Minority Leader Bob Michael, strongly opposed the so-called Clinton Care approach to health care reform which would mean more government involvement in the health care system. And this is what the Firing Line debate is essentially about.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

20th Century Vision: 'PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Report Iowa Caucus 1988'

Source:20th Century Vision- PBS News anchor Jim Lehrer, David Gergen, and Mark Shields, talking about the 1988 Iowa Caucus.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Report Iowa Caucus 1988" 

From 20th Century Vision

When then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole was running for President back in 1987-88, he won the Iowa Caucus, beating both Vice President George H. Bush, who was considered the establishment candidate, as well as beating Reverend Pat Robertson who was the Christian-Conservative candidate. That made the 1988 Republican primary race for President a two-candidate field between Minority Leader Dole and Vice President Bush, giving each candidate a target to shoot at. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- 'Where is The GOP Headed (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

"Episode S0627, Recorded on December 6, 1984

Guests: Newt Gingrich, Bill Green. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Gingrich was already a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP, and Mr. Green was prominent among the remnant of "Rockefeller Republicans." Ronald Reagan having just become, barring the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, a lame duck, Mr. Buckley asks his guests to focus on "the future of the Republican Party post Reagan." They do so more in terms of programs and philosophy than of personalities, in a crisp exchange. Mr. Green, for example, defends the Federal Government's public-housing program: when it was begun "fully half of the housing in this country either lacked indoor plumbing or was so run down it was a real threat to the life and health of the people... Now, as we've gotten to the point where the housing in this country is much better, a much better case can be made for something like the housing voucher ..." Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, sees modern liberalism as still "find[ing] it very hard to believe that average people can do anything for themselves, and so they have a tendency to provide more and more professional help, which somehow doesn't help you." 

From the Hoover Institution 

This photo is from another video of Representative Newt Gingrich’s 1984 appearance on Firing Line With William F. Buckley. But that video where this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. 

And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats, giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986 and make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader, the next Speaker of the House. 

The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985. 

What this interview with Representative Newt Gingrich in 1984 was about, was where was the Republican Party headed in the next 2-4 years and perhaps after President Ronald Reagan. With Newt Gingrich being one of the Republican visionaries in Congress and the broader Republican Party.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: 'The Role of Liberals in the Republican Party'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R, Maryland) in 1978.

"Episode S0313, Recorded on March 16, 1978

Guest: Charles McC. (Charles McCurdy) Mathias

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (Republican, Maryland) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in March of 1978. But the video from where this photo came from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line- U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: Republican, Maryland: on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1977.

"The role of Liberals in the GOP." Originally from Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress (and yes, I’m familiar Maryland political history) probably should’ve been a Democrat all along.

Which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties.

Senator Mathias was a Liberal Republican (if there is such a thing) from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected.

Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

World Ahead Publishing: Kasey S. Pipes- 'Dwight Eisenhower, Not Lyndon Johnson, Was First Civil Rights Champ'

Source:World Ahead Publishing- Little Rock, Arkansas, is literally one of the first battles of the American civil rights movement.

"Kasey Pipes, author of "Ike's Final Battle: The Road to Little Rock and the Challenge of Equality," describes how Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower -- not LBJ, as liberals often claim -- was America's first civil rights president." 

From World Ahead Publishing 

Dwight Eisenhower was the first American civil rights President, at least post-Abraham Lincoln. The only thing I would add to that is that he didn’t run for President to be that, but it sort of hit his desk with the school segregation issues that hit the American South in the 1950s with President Eisenhower believing he needed to act on that.

Source:Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Library- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) meeting with Dr. Martin L. King and other American civil rights leaders, probably in the 1950s.

Dwight Eisenhower, was not the first President to come out in favor of civil rights or human rights for everyone in America. Abraham Lincoln deserves the credit for that for the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the African slaves. And Harry Truman allowed soldiers of different races to serve together with an executive order in I believe in 1945. 

What President Dwight Eisenhower deserves credit for and I believe its accurately reported in his presidential legacy, was enforcing rule of law in America for all the people. Rule of law as a Progressive Republican, is something that Dwight Eisenhower believed in deeply and I believe he picked that up in the military. If Rule of law is not properly enforced, then rules and laws become meaningless.

Ike Eisenhower, saw his job as President to enforce rule of law. Something he did very well as President, with enforcing all of those U.S. Supreme Court decisions that allowed students of different races to go to school together and sending the Army into Little Rock, Arkansas to make sure the Governor of Arkansas allowed those African-American students go to school with the Caucasian- American students there at Central High School in Little Rock. 

And these types of decisions not just enforcing laws that you agree with, but enforcing all laws which is what rule of law is about, would not play well today with the Far-Right of the Republican Party. Which is one reason why I believe Ike Eisenhower wouldn’t be able to get the Republican nomination for president today, because he was a Center-Right, Progressive Republican, who not only believe in the Constitution, but equal rights and constitutional rights for all Americans. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Two Friends Talk: Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1990. 

"Episode S0873, Recorded on October 11, 1990. Guest: Ronald Reagan. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are no fireworks at this meeting of two old friends, but there is broad and deep discussion of the world and how Mr. Reagan may have changed it. WFB: "Conceivably, might there be USSR-American cooperation in developing SDI?" RR: "Well... I have told [Gorbachev] that I would advocate making that information open to the world ... in return for all of us destroying our nuclear weapons. But I said the reason for having it is- I used the example of World War I. I said all the nations of World War I met and outlawed poison gas, but we all kept our gats masks. I said, Who can say that down the way somewhere there won't be another Hitler, there won't be another madman that could use the knowledge of how to make weapons and blackmail the earth?" 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Two Friends Talk: Reagan and Buckley”

Source:Guy John- “2/7/1986 President Reagan with William F Buckley in the White House Residence during Private birthday party in honor of President Reagan’s 75th Birthday”

From Guy John 

“William F. Buckley was a public intellectual, commentator, and founder of National Review, the magazine that arguably launched the modern conservative movement as we know it today. Would there even be a conservative movement without Buckley’s leadership?

And if so, is he responsible for the Trumpist turn Republican Party has taken? Does Buckley bear some blame for the direction in which conservatism has developed?” 

From the Niskanen Center

It’s good to see Ron Reagan together with Bill Buckley. As far as I’m concern two of the fathers of the modern classical conservative movement. Who both had a role in making that movement national starting in the mid 1960s. With Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign that went a long way in putting classical conservatism on the map in American politics, because of the states that Senator Goldwater was able to reached. Winning Southern states that up until 1964, the Democratic Party had owned and Senator Goldwater was able to win a few of them. And of course Richard Nixon was able to win a lot of Southern states in 1968 as he was elected president. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)