Eric Cantor: 'Discusses Republican Jobs Agenda, Economic Growth and Irene on Fox News'

Source:Eric Cantor- talking to America's Newsroom.

"Eric Cantor Discusses Republican Jobs Agenda, Economic Growth and Irene on Fox News"

From Eric Cantor

The House Republican Leadership I believe has won the argument on deficit reduction in 2011. Every time a budget fight has come up, they've gotten budget cuts out of if including in the last debt ceiling debate.

They've won the argument that the Federal Government should stop borrowing and spending and moving past the fiscal policy of the Bush Administration. And that it's time for the Federal Government to get its debt and deficit under control and start paying it down.

Given that, why would they introduce an economic policy that is more of the same and gets us back to the Bush Administration by cutting taxes probably without paying for them and cutting them for the people and business's that are already doing very well and have been doing very well. But aren't spending any money right now that would create a lot of jobs in America. And return us to the days of the Wall Street Scandal of the 2008 and as well as the Wall Street scandal of 2007-08. With no referee's in the game and no one regulating business's and individuals to prevent, stop and punish people when they abuse others in the economy.

What House Leader Eric Cantor is apparently about to introduce in the House when Congress comes back in session next week, is an agenda that looks very similar to the Bush economic policy's: a combination of cowboy economics with no rules in the game. And supply side tax cuts where you cut taxes deeply for people who are already doing very well and you don't pay for them.

The reasons why our economy is in the economic mess that it's in today, is because of the borrow and spending, supply side tax cuts and a neoconservative foreign policy. Where you try to eliminate government's around the World that you don't like with military force and then you don't pay for those military operations as well. Iraq comes to mind because it's the perfect example of this policy.

With the Cantor economic agenda, we'll see campaign commercials in either late 2011 or 2012 or both from House Democratic Campaign Committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee attempting to link and I believe successfully, President Bush with the House GOP and any Republican presidential candidate that endorses it because it's more of the same.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over agin and expecting different results, then the Cantor economic agenda is insane by definition, because it's more of the same from what we've seen the last ten years, but expecting it to work better.

What we need to be doing instead as we get out debt and deficit under control is encouraging consumers to spend more money and this can be done with targeted tax cuts. As well as rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but pay for it, especially after a storm like Hurricane Irene. But also to put people back to work. And move this country towards energy independence instead of just subsidizing big oil and gas just for doing well.

The Warrior Ron Paul: 'Ron Paul Interview on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace'

 

Source:The Warrior Ron Paul- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on Fox News Sunday, with Chris Wallace.

"Ron Paul Interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - August 28, 2011. Visit Ron Paul Daily News for the latest news interviews and articles on Congressman Ron Paul." 

From The Warrior Ron Paul

It's refreshing to hear Representative Ron Paul honestly talk about reforming FEMA and disaster relief in general. But it's also refreshing to hear Representative Paul moderate his position on how to reform FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and not be in favor of getting rid of a Emergency Management Agency, without replacing it with anything else. 

The way we've dealt with natural disasters in the past, is essentially wait for a disaster and then borrow the money to pay for the disaster relief. When Congress comes back into session in September and the White House most likely sends a bill to them to borrow money from China or Russia or some other country to pay for it. 

House Leader Eric Cantor who doesn't make intelligent statements everyday, is right to take the position that Congress shouldn't allow a bill that would borrow the money to pay for this disaster relief to come out of the House at least meaning it wouldn't come out of Congress either. Because the House and Senate have to agree first before any bill can pass Congress. The Democratic Senate will probably borrow the money to pay for their Disaster Relief, that the Senate Republican Leadership will probably successfully block. 

And I know this will start another partisan political fight the victims of Hurricane Irene at stake so they can get the resources they need to rebuild their communities. And another political fight is probably the last thing Americans want to see Washington doing right now, but I believe this is a fight worth having. Because we are talking about the health of our economy and getting our fiscal condition back to a place where we can manage it with a much lower national debt and deficit. 

I'm not saying that we should ignore the victims of Hurricane Irene and do nothing for them. I'm just saying that we should pay for our disaster relief now and going into the future and do a better job of how we pay for it by putting money down and up front. And using the money to pay for the disaster relief from that fund, the cleanup and insurance. 

Reforming our Emergency Management System as well as a Disaster Insurance System I believe is fairly simple. What I would do is to eliminate FEMA, but then replace it with cooperative between the Federal Government states, and even private sector, where the Federal Government would be more of a regulator of this Emergency Management System as well as the Disaster Insurance System. Then trying to run both of them and they would both be financed by essentially a property tax and a payroll tax, to fund for the cleanup of disasters and when a disaster happens in a state, then they would be able to use this property tax to pay for the cleanup. 

With a new disaster relief system like this, they would hire private companies to handle the cleanup. And this property tax would be assigned by how much property is worth for owners and renters and how high at risk they are prone to a disaster: hurricane, earthquake whatever it might be and then their would be a payroll tax to pay for the disaster insurance. 

The Federal Government would regulate, but not run and each state would have their own Disaster Insurance System that they would regulate as well. That the people would be able to select for themselves where to get their Disaster Insurance, including a public option for each state. And again this payroll tax would be assigned by how much property is worth and how prone they are to disasters.

A PAYGO (pay as you go) system like this, paying as you putting money down and collecting it when you need it to pay for the cleanup of disasters, as well to fix and replace property thats harmed from these disasters, is a much better way to pay for Disaster Relief, then to essentially wait for a disaster to hit and then borrowing the money to pay for it. And putting it on the National Credit Card and letting nations that don't have your best interest at heart, own part of our debt.

Euro News: 'UN Mission: 'Urgent Need to Protect Syrian Civilians'

 

Source:Euro News- Don't ask me to translate that. LOL

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Syrian security forces have been accused of shooting dead two demonstrators as they came out of mosques during the most sacred night in Ramadan. 

 The deaths reportedly occurred in separate towns after al-Qadr prayers, the night when Muslims believe the Prophet received the Koran.

 The latest amateur pictures, difficult to verify, show protesters in buoyant mood calling for President Assad's downfall.

The United Nations said at least eight people were killed as thousands rallied around the country on Friday. Euro News." 

From Euro News

With the fall of the Gadaff Regime in Libya, I believe it's now time to put the international focus on Syria and the Assad Regime there to try to force President Bashar Al-Assad to step down from and power and his regime as well to bring a transitional government there while the Syrian people move to rebuild Syrian and rewrite their national constitution and form a new government there. 

Because of the brutal crackdowns there, that Assad security forces have put the Syrian opposition through just because they are fighting for their liberation there, I don't believe the United Nations, European Union, United States, and the Arab League should step aside and watch this brutal authoritarian regime of President Assad murder his own people because they are fighting for freedom and to end the fifty year reign of the Assad Regime. From Father Assad to his son Bashar and to try to establish some type of peaceful respectful government there that would respect human rights. 

I'm not making this argument as a Neoconservative because I'm not: I'm a Liberal Democrat who believes in liberal internationalism. And that means working with our allies to deal with the issues of the world, like government's murdering their own people because they want freedom for example. 

Syria is not a country that America can invade and occupy on its own: Syria is a pretty good size country of 22M people. About the size of Iraq but smaller and America as far as I'm concern is already overcommitted in the world. And not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea as well. 

But just because we are overcommitted in the World, doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and watch innocent people be murdered by their own governments. We are still the strongest leader in the world that needs to work with our partners the other leaders in the world to deal with these issues when they come up. Along with the United Nations, European Union, Arab League as well. With Syria clearly being in the Arab League's neighborhood along with Turkey a major ally of America. 

This is an area where I believe the Arab League should step up to the plate a play a major role in trying to knock down the Assad Regime peacefully or otherwise, hopefully peacefully of course, to limit innocent people from being killed. And that might mean that they have their own defense force and foreign Service, similar to NATO thats made up of its own members. That the European Union is trying to build for themselves, that don't have brutal regimes. That can step in to deal with these authoritarian regimes as they come up that murders its own people. 

An Arab coalition could work with Syria and the European Union and the United States to knock these regimes out of power when they go too far. And I believe Syria would be a great opportunity where an international coalition could step up to knock out the Assad Regime. That where the United States could still play a valuable role, but more from the outside with supplies and resources but where are partners step up and do the work. Like with a no fly zone and perhaps even ground troops to defend the Syrian opposition. 

I'm for a four step process to taking the Assad Regime out-of-power in Syria. First, with economic sanctions in coalition with our partners. Then freezing the assets of the Assad Regime to keep money from the Assad Regime from leaving Syria or going into the Assad Regime. Supplying the Syrian opposition with resources and supplies so they can play a major role in this operation. 

And then if necessary a no fly zone and ground troops over Syria if necessary. In coalition with NATO and the Arab League.

Euro News: 'What Will NATO's Role be in a Post-Gaddafi Libya?'

Source:Euro News- Admiral Gianpaolo Di Paola: Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Nato warplanes have once again been in action in the skies over Libya. On Friday it was confirmed a formation of Tornado jets fired precision-guided missiles against what has been called, "a large headquarters bunker" in Sirte.

Since NATO took command of air strikes on March 31 they have conducted over 20,200 sorties while off the coast of the North African country 16 ships under NATO command are enforcing an arms embargo." Euro News"

From Euro News

NATO including the United States except for the fact that we played a much smaller but still vital role in Libya, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq in providing the air cover and security for the Libyan rebels so they could take down the Gadaffi Regime and NATO has proven that they still play a valuable role in helping to bring stability to trouble nations that aren't used to stability. 

But NATO's role in Libya isn't over: they need to stay there to help provide the security for the Libyan Transitional Council and the Libyan people as they try to bring stability to that country and to write a National Constitution, form a new national government and hold national elections. 

Building a stable, functional, and responsible Libyan government, is not something the United States can do on its own We are already overcommitted and need to bring our troops home in places like Europe, the Middle East, Japan, and Korea. And demand that these nations take the lead role in defending themselves, while we get our national debt and deficit under control and rebuild our economy. 

But this is an area we can help with supplies and resources like releasing frozen assets to Libya so they can use that money to rebuild their country. This is something that NATO is going to have to play a lead role, with even ground troops even, along with the Arab League, especially Egypt. And where the European Union and United Nations can play a role in helping Libya form its new national constitution and government. 

The West including America can help Libya with supplies and resources as well like getting the Libyan oil industry up and running again. Lifting economic sanctions and trade agreements. This is another area and more evidence that the United States can no longer be the sole policemen of the world and that we have to work with our European and Arab partners, African partners as well to help bring stability to these trouble areas in the world. 

Somalia would be another example where an international coalition can work together to bring stability. And help them build a stable government that respects human rights and serves its people. The United States is 14T$ in debt with a 1.8T$ budget deficit and a weak economy to go along with that. And we have our own bills that we have to start paying that we owe to a lot of these countries. 

America needs to start paying our own bills and rebuilding our own country and putting our own people to work before we decide upon ourselves that we need to try to do that for other countries, especially on our own. And I'm thinking of Iraq of course and to a certain extent Afghanistan where some of our partners are starting to pull out of there as well. 

Libya is not Afghanistan, they have money and an educated class that will be a big help in rebuilding this very large but lightly populated country. It's more like Iraq though that going to need a lot of help in putting these resources together for the good of Libya.

Euro News: 'Moammar Gaddafi's Deadly Weapons Arsenal Prompts US Concern'

Source:Euro News- don't ask me to translate this for you. LOL

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"As the Gaddafi regime hangs by a thread the United States is becoming increasingly concerned about the fate of Libya's weapons stockpiles.

US intelligence fears that Gaddafi may use the weaponry in a bloody last stand. But there is also the prospect of dangerous material falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other militant groups, even if the rebels consolidate victory.

 Libya possesses a huge and varied arsenal including chemical agents and raw nuclear material as well as some 30,000 shoulder-fired rockets." 

From Euro News

Libya in the short and long-term is going to need protection and the transition from the authoritarian dictatorship of Moammar Gadafi, to a transitional government, to a permanent national government that can defend itself and respects human rights. But at this point the Libyan Transitional National Council isn't capable of defending and governing this very large country on their own. 

Libya is going to need short-term protection as they rebuild their military and National Law Enforcement or Interior Department. But again the Libyan TNC won't be able to do this on their own and this is where NATO, the European Union, Arab League, United Nations and the United States to a smaller extent will have to play a major role in order for Libya to be able to make successful transition from the Gadafi Regime to a more stable government. 

Libya is going to need foreign troops to help defend and secure the country, the Libyan Rebels can play a role in this, as well as be part of the new Libyan military and law enforcement, but they are going to need reinforces to protect the country. But to also rebuild its military to retrain the military and rebuild its law enforcement. As well as find the Gaddafi weapons of mass destruction, that apparently the Gaddafi military had a better supply of then the Saddam Hussein Regime when it was kicked out of power back in 2003. I don't believe they'll have to be destroyed like they were in Iraq or what's left of the current Libyan Military will have to be destroyed either. 

Libya is already going to need more than enough help to secure the country as they transition from Gaddafi to a more respectful government. And dismantling what's left of the current Libyan Military won't accomplish that, which is what was done in Iraq. I believe the fastest and most responsible way for Libya to rebuild its military and security forces, to build on what they already have by bringing ex Gaddafi fighters as well as the Libyan rebels. 

Once Libya is somewhat secure with an international coalition of NATO the EU, AL, UN perhaps the African Union as well, then they can move transitioning from the TNC to a permanent national government. With a national constitution and having elections in the future, rebuilding the Libyan oil industry which will be critical to providing the resources necessary to rebuilding the country. As well as new trade agreements with Libya, releasing frozen assets to the TNC. Where hopefully they'll make a smooth transition from authoritarianism to democracy that the Libyan people will have to figure how to accomplish this. 

But before Libya can accomplish and of this, they are going to have to secure the country and not just Tripoli but the other cities and the thirty two provinces that are in this very large country.

Euro News: 'Libya Puts The E.U. To The Test'

Source:Euro News- Catherine Ashton: Chief of Foreign Policy, for the European Union.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The flag of the Europe Union was raised in the rebel held town in Benghazi four months after the revolution in Libya started. It was more than symbolism and backed with the opening of an office by Catherine Ashton after politics and posturing within member states. In Brussels on Tuesday she outlined the bloc's latest response saying she will sit down with the UN, African Union and Arab League in New York at the end of the week. It is, Ashton admitted a test on how the EU can act effectively. Euro News." 

From Euro News

With the United States facing a national debt of 14T$ and a budget Deficit of 1.8T$ and with a weak economy with very little economic or job growth, where we are already over committed in the world, the last thing we should do right now is have more American troops on the ground in another country, especially another Middle Eastern country. 

We need to step back and play a major role from the outside with things like foreign aide and helping them form their own national government. But don't do it for them, but Libya is an example of where the European Union which is just a short swim away from Libya. (Not literally in case, you are thinking of swimming from Italy to Libya or something)

Here's an example of where the European Union could play a major constructive role in their backyard. In areas like helping Libya developed its new military, law enforcement, developing their provincial government's. With their troops as well as foreign aide and having trade agreements with Libya which is something the United States should do as well. 

This is an opportunity where the E.U. can step up of show some influence in the world and not just in Europe and be a real player and partner on the world stage by helping Libya close this ugly forty two year chapter in their history of the Gadafi Regime. And move to form a responsible government that respects its people and respects human rights. 

This is also an area where the Arab League can step up and play a major constructive role as well, especially Egypt to help secure the new Libya as they work to build their new government and country. With troops and other resources as well. 

Libya is a very large country about the size of Iran physically with thirty two provinces. And will need additional armed forces to defend this large country especially as the Libyan rebels and NATO beat down a lot of the Gadafi military. Libya will also need help rebuilding its military. 

Libya is an opportunity where the European Union can influence what type of national constitution and national government Libya will have going forward. And developing those things and show them what type of governments are in Europe and to influence them in that way as well. Not to try to make them set up their type of government, only Libya can decide that for themselves, but to have a say in what type of government they have through influence. 

Libya has a long way to go before they'll have a functional government that will be able to defend the country in a responsible way. And will need help in developing that especially since the Gadafi Regime did almost nothing to develop its own governmental institutions. The European Union and Arab League could help play a vital role here while the United States steps back instead of trying to be the sole policemen of the world. 

Euro News: 'Winning Unity Next Challenge for Libyan Rebels'

Source:Euro News- Libyan rebels.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"There is nothing like a common enemy to unite old foes but the speed and manner of the rebel advance on Tripoli has been astonishing. NATO's bombing campaign may have evened out the battlefield against Gaddafi's troops giving the poorly armed and ill-equipped forces the chance to take the capital. But only last month divisions and disarray threatened to rip the rebels apart. The murder of the rebel army chief, Abdul Fatah Younis, exposed the difficulties for Libya's future government. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Now that Moamar Gadhafi is apparently out-of-power and no longer running Libya and is perhaps more of an opposition force to the Transitional National Council in Libya and it's just a matter of capturing Gadhafi and his deputies, Libya can move to build their own country that respects it's people as well as their human rights and rule of law.

But assuming Libya can start their own personal nation building process fairly soon, the next step for Libya and the TNC as well as the Libyan people, is how do they build up Libya as a functioning country with a functioning national government and functioning provincial and local government's as well, so the people can be free to live their own lives, send their kids to school, have a functioning health care system, legal system, etc. Libya is going to need a national constitution, rule of law, law and order, all things that any functioning nation need that Libya currently doesn't have. 

The issues that Libya have unlike Egypt, is that Egypt by in-large already had most of these things. And Libya is more like Iraq post-Saddam Hussein where the entire Hussein Regime fell and the United States literally had to install its own transitional government there before a new Iraqi Transitional Government could be formed. Libya does have a Transitional National Council, so at least they have something they can build on. 

Libya needs a national constitution that the Libyan people should have to approve. They are going to have to rebuild their law enforcement, their military, an interim President or Prime Minister or both, before they hold general elections to elect a new Parliament or Congress as well as President or Prime Minister. 

Libya is going to need transitional, provincial, and local government's, before they hold provincial and local elections. Establish political party's to compete for power of the country. A court system and they may have to bring in some of the former Gadhafi Regime members to help with this transition which could cause problems. 

Libya has a lot of work to do, but they do have a large oil industry that will help in providing the resources to do so but they are going to have to rebuild that as well. 

This as I see it is a huge opportunity for Libya obviously to go from an authoritarian regime to functioning country that respects human rights, if democracy all together, but its also a huge opportunity as well for the Arab League as well. 

Time the Arab League to move past the days of being in the pockets of these authoritarian Arabian regimes. And move to a place where perhaps they aren't speaking out in favor of liberal and social democracy, which I think would be a stretch. But at least get to the point and they've shown some progress in this direction on with Egypt and Syria. 

The Arab League needs to get to a place where they are no longer backing authoritarian regimes with brutal human rights records and at least speaking out against these regimes. And if anything working to get these regimes thrown out-of-power and installing government's that at least respect human rights. 

The Arab League could work with Libyan people to move past Moammar Gadhafi and work with them to build a respectful and responsible government there.

Euro News: 'Rebels Close In On Moamar Gaddafi's Tripoli Stronghold'

Source:Euro News- civil war in Libya.

"Euronews is a European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Who controls what in Libya? Amid fierce fighting, it is still unclear whether rebels have, as they claim, seized control of two key coastal cities." 

From Euro News

I supported America's role on the NATO no fly zone in Libya back in March when we first became part of it under the War Powers Act. But my problem with this operation since is how President Obama has interpreted the War Power Act using the WPA as justification to get involved in Libya but not living up to the WPA as far as reporting to Congress within ninety days after our involvement. 

I haven't supported basically any involvement in Syria or the gulf states because I don't trust the Obama Administration at this point in how they would handle potential American military operations there, because I believe they've basically taken this position that they have the authority to send American troops oversees on our own and even if they don't, who's going to stop us and the hell with Congress and everybody else involved, just send them the money to fund these operations. 

The Obama Administration's current position of the WPA looks very similar to the George W. Bush Administration on national security: it looks very neoconservative and not why Barack Obama was elected President. 

So with the Libyan Rebels starting to make real progress in Libya now and hopefully about to knock Moamar Quadaffi out-of-power, the time is very close for the United States to pull out of Libya and let NATO take complete control there with the help of the Arab League. And bring our planes home from Libya and start to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well. 

The fact that we've been involved in Afghanistan our longest war ever for coming up on ten years (in October) Iraq for eight years and now Libya since March and with Iran pursuing nuclear weapons without us having much if any ability to do anything about it, the fact that we have the largest defense budget in the world by far (second place is not even close) with our defense budget being around 700B$ a year and of course our 14T$ national debt with 20% of that coming from our defense budget, is more then enough evidence that we can't be the sole policemen of the world and need more partners. 

What America should be doing instead as of right now and into the future is work with our allies to build up regional alliances to handle situations like this in the future. So when a murderous dictator like a Moamar Quadaffi or a Bashar Al-Assad decides to murder his own people in the future, because they decide that they don't like their government and want the freedom to live their own lives, there would be an international alliance ready and able to deal with thugs.

A alliance like this like the Arab League in Arabia or the African Union in Africa (to use as examples) can step and knock these authoritarian regimes down or at least hold them down, while rebels fight for their freedom. Like what is going in Libya right now, but instead of this no fly zone being an Arab League operation, its a NATO operation instead because the AL isn't equipped to do something like this right now. Which is a big problem and why we are there right now.

Marijuana Community: 'Get Info About Marijuana!'

 

Source:Marijuana Community- What are you smoking? LOL

"GET INFO ABOUT MARIJUANA! Marijuana Community." 

From the Marijuana Community

You take politics out of the marijuana debate and politicians not worried about looking "soft on crime" or "soft on the War on Drugs" than marijuana would already be legal in America. Same thing with alcohol in the 1920s and 30s: take politicians out of that debate and we don't have alcohol prohibition either back then. 

Marijuana prohibition is about big government trying to control how people live their own lives, trying to protect people from themselves. Marijuana decriminalization is about pragmatism and sanity, making something that government already knows a lot of its people use, as safe as possible. Just the way alcohol and tobacco are regulated in America and that system by in-large has worked very well in America. 

I'm not arguing that marijuana is healthy for people and that everyone should be using it and I wouldn't make the same argument for alcohol and tobacco either. I'm just saying that if you know people are going to do something that is very similar to other things that are already legal like alcohol and tobacco, you might as well take a realistic and practical approach to marijuana and decriminalize it at least at the Federal level. And let the States figure out where to go with marijuana from there, just as they regulate alcohol, tobacco and marriage today. 

If you are anti-big government and don't want government controlling how you live your own life, as long as you are not hurting innocent people, then you have no problem with marijuana decriminalization and then regulating and taxing it. 

If you believe 2M people is too many people to have in prison and the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people in prison just for possession or use of narcotics, then you don't have a problem with marijuana decriminalization. And again regulating and taxing it, treating it like alcohol and tobacco to prevent people from driving or flying to use as examples while they are high. Again to make it as safe as possible because marijuana like alcohol and tobacco have negative side effects. 

 Let's decriminalize marijuana, let's stop arresting people for simple use or possession of it. 

Let's pardon our prison inmates who are in prison for marijuana possession or use who haven't committed any other crimes while in prison. 

Let's transfer our prison inmates who are in prison for possessing or using other narcotics and haven't committed any other crimes while in prison to drug rehab clinics and halfway houses where they can get the help that they need with their addiction and turn their lives around. Because they don't represent a threat to anyone else other than themselves. 

Let's save our limited prison space for the people who need to be in prison who do represent a major threat to society. 

And let's end the failed forty year fake War on Drugs where we've spent trillions of tax revenue trying to control how people live their own lives, instead of how they interact with each other. 

And let free people in a free society live their own lives instead of trying to control our population. If you know someone is going to do something and you can't stop them from doing it and all you can do is to react to what they did after the fact. And they are not hurting anyone else with their actions, you might as well give them as much info as possible about what they are doing. Instead of trying to stop them all together, so they can make the most informed decisions as possible. 

Marijuana Prohibition to me is sort of like sex prohibition for adolescents: it's just as ineffective.

CBS News: CBS Evening News- President Richard Nixon vs. Senator Ted Kennedy on Health Care (1971)

Source:CBS News- Washington correspondent Daniel Schorr.

"Back in 1971 Republican President Nixon and Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy debated national health care reform. Here's a report at the time from CBS News' Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr." 

From CBS News

If you look at what President Richard Nixon proposed in health care reform in 1971 to Congress and you look at what Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to do then and perhaps his whole Congressional career, the debate then between President Nixon and Senator Kennedy is very similar to the debate that President Barack Obama had with the Democratic Socialist faction of his party in 2009-10. 

The one difference between 1971 and 2010 on health care is that President Nixon being a Republican obviously and a ProgressiveRepublican (I know that sounds strange) Someone who didn't believe in empowering the Federal Government and expanding it generally in the economy, other than to help people help themselves and serve as an economic insurance system for people who truly needed.

And Senator Ted Kennedy who I would describe as the Bernie Sanders of the 1970s, along with Senator George McGovern and perhaps a few other left-wing Democrats in Congress, who believed in social insurance programs and the welfare state. And in protecting them and even expanding them. 

Health care being a perfect example of this as Senator Kennedy was in favor of a single payer health insurance system. With Medicare being the only health insurer for the whole country. But what President Nixon offered and I give him a lot of credit especially as a Republican for taking on health care reform an issue that the Democratic Party has owned at least since the creation of Medicare in 1965.

But what the Nixon Administration offered looks very similar to what President Obama worked out with the Democratic Congress in 2010. The Nixon Administration essentially created our employer sponsored health insurance system. Where a lot of American workers get their health insurance today. And for a long time through their employer. 

What President Nixon wanted to do in health insurance was to expand it to millions of Americans who couldn't afford health insurance on their own. Or couldn't afford their employers health insurance plan. President Nixon's program was essentially private health insurance expansion through workers employers. Which is what the ACA is with a Patients Bill of Rights built into it as well and a health insurance mandate.

So to call the Affordable Care Act extreme or socialist, or anything like that is nonsense. (To be generous) It's a very mainstream approach to health insurance reform. That was started in 1971 in the Nixon Administration and then later proposed again in 1993-94 with then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole a Republican, obviously. Along with then Senator John Chaffey a Northeastern Republican during the failed Clinton health care reform debate then. That President Clinton now admits that he regrets not taking the Senate Republican compromise in health care reform.

The Senate Republican proposal of the early 1990s, that President Clinton could've had, but would've given him a partial victory in this debate and an accomplishment. And a chance to fight round two of health care reform in his presidency and build off of the first bill. And perhaps even saving the Democratic Congress in 1994. But of course we will never know. 

Senator Kennedy clearly didn't like the Nixon health Care reform plan as this video indicates. But it's hardly an extreme proposal proposed by right-wing extremists. Because the Dole/Chaffey health care plan in 1993-94 would've build off of the employer sponsored health insurance system. And what was in the Nixon plan, a lot of it is in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Helmer Reenberg: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- On The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963)

Source: Helmer Reenberg- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

"Assassination of John F. Kennedy, mortal shooting of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, as he rode in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. His accused killer was Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine who had embraced Marxism and defected for a time to the Soviet Union. Oswald never stood trial for murder, because, while being transferred after having been taken into custody, he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a distraught Dallas nightclub owner." 

From the Encyclopedia Britanica 

"Senator Barry Goldwater talks to reporters about his memories of and respect for President Kennedy." 

From Helmer Reenberg

The assassination of Jack Kennedy was tragic in so many ways for so many people and a big reason for it was, because of how talented President Kennedy was as a President as well as a man. But just as political junky from my perspective, one of the reasons why his death was so tragic, was because of what could've been. 

The 1964 presidential election would've look and it would've probably affected the Congressional elections as well. Because I believe and we will never have anyway of knowing this that a Goldwater-Kennedy election would've been much closer. 

After President Kennedy was assassinated most of the country turned to Lyndon Johnson to be their President to full-fill President Kennedy's agenda. Which is a big reason why Richard Nixon didn't run for President in 1964 and waited till 1968. But I believe the 1964 presidential election had it been between Goldwater and Kennedy, would've been a great presidential election. I think Kennedy would've still won though.

But with Senator Barry Goldwater, you would've had a presidential candidate representing classical conservatism about as well as it could be represented. And to a certain extent I believe he did that anyway in 1964. Running against President Johnson despite losing in a landslide where I believe he won less than 40% of the vote and lost around forty states. But managed to win Southern states that were owned by the Democratic Party. 

And then you would've had President Jack Kennedy on the Center-Left, a liberal hero of mine, representing liberalism as well as it could be represented. And I believe we would've seen great debates across the country. As they were apparently already talking about doing in as early as 1962, I believe from what I would've heard. And they would've been great debates, on civil rights. The President being in favor of the civil rights bills that President Johnson got through Congress. Senator Goldwater had a different approach: Medicare which was a bill that President Kennedy tried to push through Congress. Senator Goldwater would've wanted a different bill with more competition for senior citizens. 

Cuba with Fidel Castro and how we try to deal with that Communist Republic, there would've been a lot of great issues that these great men would've debated in 1964. 

The assassination of President Jack Kennedy was tragic on many levels, but from a perspective of a political junky, it was tragic for the country as well. Because they were left with one less great general election. With President Kennedy running a tough race to get reelected and Senator Goldwater giving him a run for his money. 

A Goldwater-Kennedy presidential election, would have been a great classic battle, between the Center-Right and the growing conservative movement. Against Center-Left Liberals, who are called New Democrats today. But we'll never know. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Source:Hoover Institution- Charles Moore, talking about U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution 

"One of Britain’s most distinguished journalists, Charles Moore is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers and of the Spectator magazine. Moore is also the authorized biographer of the Right Honorable Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, better known as Margaret Thatcher."  

Source:Hoover Institution- British journalist Charles Moore, on Margaret Thatcher.

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward religious conservatism.

Christian-Conservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Christian-Conservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, 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)

Marijuana Community: 'US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!'

Source:Marijuana Community- Mexican drug dealers.

"US Government ALLOWED Mexican Drug Cartel To Smuggle Drugs!" 

From Marijuana Community

Here's another example of the hypocrisy in the American so-called War on Drugs: allowing some narcotics come into America, in exchange for info on other drug cartels. Fixing one broken leg while you are breaking the other. And you can add this to the list of hypocrisy in the fake War on Drugs: prohibiting marijuana while allowing alcohol and tobacco, drugs that are just as dangerous if not more dangerous than marijuana. 

Now I've said this before: I'm not for legalizing marijuana because I think its good for people or I want to use it and not risk going to jail because of that use. But what I'm saying is that if government is going to prohibit and activity, because they think it's bad for people and try to protect us from ourselves and try to make these decisions for us, instead of giving us the freedom of choice to decide these things for ourselves, then they should prohibit all activities where the cost benefits are about the same. Alcohol and tobacco are excellent examples when talking about marijuana. Otherwise it's just hypocritical of government and gives people another reason not to trust them, as if people didn't have enough already. 

If you want to win the fake War on Drugs, you can start by being honest with the people you are trying to protect and not be hypocritical. And stop having laws and trying to pass new laws that attempts to protect people from themselves and instead just have laws that try to protect innocent people from the harm of others. Because once you pass a law, you still have to enforce it , otherwise it's as worthless as jaywalking laws. 

Just because you make something illegal, doesn't mean it goes away, thats why we have jails and prisons, all the evidence you need to know that. And enforcing laws comes with a cost whether they are good laws or bad laws. A cost to society, so you might as well just have good honest laws that are designed to protect innocent people from the harm of others. And stop having and passing as Classical Liberal economist Milton Friedman called "Bad Laws" laws that are designed to protect people from themselves instead of the harm of others. 

This Mexican drug cartel case of where the U.S. Government agreed to let narcotics smuggled into America in exchange for intelligence on other drug cartels. Is just more evidence of the hypocrisy and stupidity of the fake War on Drugs and why we need to change and reform it before this war causes more damage on American society.

Eric Cantor: 'With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?'

Source:House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- talking about President Obama, taxes, and the economy.

"With Unemployment At 9.2%, What Economic Theory Validates President Obama's Desire To Raise Taxes?"

From House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

In round one of the debt deal, there was a plan that was all about budget cuts, including in the Defense Department and no cuts in entitlement programs. 

Round two of the debt deal will be about entitlement reform and tax reform. I don't see this Republican House ever going for tax hikes on anyone, income tax hikes impossible. But would could happen from this Congressional Joint Committee (as I prefer to call them) is tax reform that closes tax loopholes, including corporate welfare, big oil and gas subsidy's eliminated and using that revenue to help pay down the debt. In exchange these company's would be able to have more areas to operate which would actually be good for the economy, because of the jobs it would create. 

I believe this is the best that Democrats and the President will be able to get from this Republican House. And is something that they and the Democratic Senate should fight for. As well as entitlement reform that saves these programs without hurting people who need them. But demanding that wealthier people who don't need them, pay more into them and take out less. 

As far as the rest of the social insurance programs in the Federal Government: I would like to see them taken off of the Federal and state budgets all together. And made independent of the Federal Government all together and turned into non-profit, good will services that would help people in need as well as empowering these people to become self-sufficient. But still regulated by the Federal Government. But I don't see that this Congressional Joint Committee coming up with this. But thats an idea I'll be pushing in the future. 

The problem with the economy isn't that taxes are too high on the wealthy. The problem with the economy has to do with lack of demand. People aren't spending enough money and purchasing enough items, for business's to make enough money to create enough economic growth that leads to strong job growth. 

And while we are waiting for the Congressional Joint Committee to hopefully draft round two of debt reduction, hopefully the economy will be the next focus.

The White House and Congress should be concentrating on the economy and creating more demand in it so people spend more money, to get economic and job growth going again. And they can do this without adding to the debt, which would be the easiest way to pay down the debt without hurting anyone. 

The economy should be Congress's main focus in September when they come back, things like a National Infrastructure Bank which would pay for itself which would also help with our manufacturing industry. Because the people who do these projects need the supplies to do this work. 

And we also need a comprehensive energy plan would help the economy as well and allow our energy company's to expand their presence in America. Which again would create a lot more jobs in exchange for cutting their corporate welfare. 

And last but never least, three trade deals stuck in Congress: Central America, Columbia and Korea, three major markets where we could export our goods.  

It's  good that round one of debt reduction is behind us and now Washington will have an opportunity to focus on the economy when Congress comes back in September along with the NFL, hint hint. And that has to be the biggest focus right now for several reasons but also without a strong economy, debt reduction means nothing. 

CNN: '1994- Newt Gingrich's Contract With America'

Source:CNN- House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) talking about the House Republicans Contract With America.

 "In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans against the Clinton administration and orchestrated "The Contract With America." 

From CNN

The 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress that not only saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years, but saw them take control of the Senate for the first time in eight years, was obviously very impressive. First of all the numbers: they went from I believe 178 Seats in the House to 230, a fifty two seat pickup in one mid-term election. And then some right-wing Democratic Representatives switched over to the Republican Party right after that election. 

And Senate Republicans went from forty four Senators, a filibuster proof minority to fifty three, a nine seat pickup in the Senate. Where only 1/3 of the Senators runs every two years so that pretty impressive as well. 

But it's how Congressional Republicans did this: a lot of it were gifts from the Democratic Party President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The 103rd Democratic Congress was very productive as far as passing legislation. President Clinton got most of his agenda from the 1992 campaign through his first two years. 

I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of this and I believe a lot of good legislation. Two trade agreements that both actually had bipartisan support that the Republican Leadership who were still in the minority in both the House and Senate, instead of trying to block it like they were successful in doing with health Care reform, helped try to pass those bills.

Then President Clinton got his Family and Medical Leave bill through, his deficit reduction bill through without one Republican in Congress voting for it. And the 1994 crime bill that had some bipartisan support for. As well as two Supreme Court Justices through the Democratic Senate, Stephen Brier and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two liberals, by the way. 

But the problem with most of this legislation that President Clinton and Congressional Democrats passed was how unpopular it was with the Republican base and Independents and ended up uniting the entire Republican Party against President Clinton and the Democratic Congress. 

And the Republican Congressional Leadership along with the Republican National Committee and their allies knew how unpopular Washington Democrats were and were able to take advantage of this anger across the country and tell people especially in Republican areas, that they don't like what the Democrats are doing as well, vote for them in 1994 and they'll stop them. Along with the Senate Republican Leadership with Bob Dole able to block more legislation from passing. 

Another thing that I respected as a political junky and also as a Liberal even though I disagreed with a lot of the Contract with America, was what it was about, getting America back to classical conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism and foreign policy conservatism. Even though they brought in the Christian- Right which certainly doesn't represent classical conservatism but religious fundamentalism.

The Newt Gingrich Congressional Republicans (especially in the House) weren't from the George W Bush Administration. Their message was the Federal Government was too big, has too much power and spends too much money. And has moved away from what the U.S. Constitution and we need to send some of this power back to the states and people. And give them a bigger say in how they govern themselves. This was sort of a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan conservative message. That they almost threw away in their first two years but they got off to a good start.