Walter Block: 'War, Peace, & Statism'

Source:Mises Media- author and columnist Walter Block.

"The Gregory T. Morin Lecture, presented at the 2012 Mises Institute Supporters Summit: "The Truth About War: A Revisionist Approach".  Recorded at Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on 26 October 2012." 

From Mises Media

I agree with Walter Block on a few points here as well and disagree with him on one major point. 

I'm also not an Anarchist (surprise, surprise) and I agree on Walter Block's general view of the role of government. Which is essentially to protect the innocent from predators, not run our lives for us. That every American has the right to live their own life, even as they see fit, just as long as they're not hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. 

Where I disagree with Walter Block has to do with the comparing government taxes with the dues that one pays to be member of a social club. Club members pay club dues, even if they don't use every service available at the club. If they just go to the club for the food and drinks and socialize with their friends in the dining room or a social room, but they don't play golf there, they don't workout there, they don't swim there, etc, they're still obligated to pay for all of their club dues. 

Being a member of a free, developed society, is similar to being the member of a social club. The management of the club, is similar to the government in a society. The government represents the society ( at least officially) and the management represents the club members (at least officially) to see to it that it's the best club that it can be. 

We pay club dues to be a member of a club. We pay taxes to be a member of a free, developed country, that's represented and managed by the government. And we can argue about what exactly our club and government should be doing and what it fees it should be charging, but we all pay those fees, or risk having sanctions being placed against us.

Euro News: Christiane Amanpour: 'US Still Dominates'

Source:Euro News- ABC News foreign affairs anchor Christiane Amanpour talking to Euro News.

"Against the background of the global economic crisis, domestic issues have trumped foreign policy in the run-up to the US election. 

To discuss the major foreign policy questions facing the next US administration, euronews spoke to Christiane Amanpour, Global Affairs anchor at ABC News, in New York.

Lise Pedersen, euronews: "What major foreign policy changes can we expect in the next four years? Is America's influence still as great as it used to be?"

Christiane Amanpour: "Well, two separate questions there: Yes, America's influence is still great by virtue of the fact that it is the only superpower. It has the world's strongest economy despite this economic crisis globally right now, and it has, obviously, the world's strongest military. So yes, the US can be expected to still be in a dominant position. 

"The real question is how the US chooses, under a new administration, either Obama or Romney, to project that power and where it chooses to do so. Will it choose to retreat because of the economic crisis and because of what both candidates have been saying: the need to do nation-building at home, and the need to get the economy really back on track to serious growth back at home? However, as you've seen in the foreign policy debate, there was not a whole lot of difference between either Romney or Obama on the major issues."

euronews: "Peace in the Middle East is all but stalled. Relations with Israel are at an all-time low - can we expect the Middle East peace process to be revived, and which of the candidates is more likely to do that?" 

Amanpour: "Well, I don't think either, if you want my very frank analysis. If there is to be a Middle East peace process, both the United States and the parties have to be thoroughly engaged. That is, the US really has to be there as the good faith third party, the backer of this process, and also the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas - I know they're not even involved in it - but the fact is that the Palestinians are split. Now, having said that, there's no indication at all that either candidate will use the full weight of the US presidency, to throw it behind a renewed push, for peace in the Middle East." 

euronews: "What is the biggest threat facing the US? Does the main security threat still come from the Middle East or is it no longer a security threat but an economic one coming from China?"

Amanpour: "Obviously, there is an economic challenge from China. But by the flip-side if China's economic health is bad: that also has a reverberation on the US and Europe, so nobody's wishing for a decrease in Chinese economic growth. Obviously, both candidates want to manage it better so that it's more advantageous to the US, but in those foreign policy debates, President Obama identified terrorism as the biggest threat facing America going forward, and Governor Romney identified a nuclear Iran as the biggest threat going forward." 

euronews: "During the third presidential debate, which was about foreign policy, the eurozone crisis wasn't even mentioned. But how could this crisis impact on US-EU relations, bearing in mind the EU is the largest trading partner of the United States?"

Amanpour: "Well precisely, and it was perhaps a glaring error. The only problem is that US polling doesn't show the eurozone crisis to be a huge issue. But even though the European system doesn't play in an American election overtly, remember that when the United States wants to act anywhere in the world... let's just go back to Libya: who did it call first? The eurozone, the Europeans! Who did it bond with, who did it go into alliance with? Britain and France, which led the action in Libya, and then the US joined up, and there was a broader impact. So, my point is to say that Europe is very, very important to the United States, even though it doesn't play a huge role, either in presidential debates or in the campaign."

From Euro News

"Euronews (styled on-air in lowercase as euronews) is a European television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and covers world news from a European perspective.

The majority of Euronews (88%) is owned by Portuguese investment management firm Alpac Capital[2][3][4] with the rest partly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations.

It is a provider of livestreamed news, which can be viewed in most of the world (with the exceptions of Canada, Turkey, Singapore, China, Cuba, and North Korea)[citation needed] via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players, including Fubo TV, Sling TV, Pluto TV and Haystack News." 

From Wikipedia

The United States is still the most important country in the world, because we are still the strongest power in the world. We still have the largest economy in the world with living standards that other countries are striving to match and we still have the strongest military in the world. And when there's some crisis in the world, Europe and others pay attention to America and expect us to do something about it. 

Because of this, we have more influence on any other country in the world, when we decide to use it and can use that influence to benefit ourselves. But also benefit other countries, like helping other countries that are moving from being authoritarian states to democracy like Tunisia and Libya and help them get the resources that they need to be able to defend themselves and we can also help developing countries that are implementing capitalism to help them become more developed, like what we've been doing in aiding and trading with Latin America.

America no longer and perhaps never had the resources to police the world. This is an area where Europe needs to step up and help us. Saudi Arabia being a better influence in the Middle East would help that as well and Japan and Korea doing more to defend themselves would benefit us as well. But we are too important of a power to simply ignore what's going on in the world. Because as 9/11 has shown, what goes on in other countries, effects what happens in the United States as well.

UK Parliament: 'Prime Minister's Questions: 24 October 2012'

Source:UK Parliament- Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative England) United Kingdom.

"Prime Minister, David Cameron, answered questions from MPs in the House of Commons on Wednesday 24 October.

  

Starting at midday, the Prime Minister answers questions from MPs in the Commons for half an hour every Wednesday.

 

In most cases, the session starts with a routine 'open question' from an MP about the Prime Minister's engagements. MPs can then ask supplementary questions on any subject, often one of current political significance.

 

Opposition MPs follow up on this or another topic, usually led by the Leader of the Opposition, Edward Miliband. Normally, he is the only MP allowed to come back with further questions." 

From the UK Parliament

I don't like everything about the United Kingdom's form of government as an American. 

I don't like the fact that the voters can't directly elect their own chief executive, the voters in parties get to elect their own leaders, they do have something that looks like a primary system but. Once the General Election starts in Britain, it's up to who controls the House of Commons that decides who becomes the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the next Parliament. Whereas Americans decide for ourselves who becomes the next President in the next Congress. We directly elect our chief executive and the UK Government is too centralize for me. 

Britain also doesn't have the checks and balances or separation of branches but their system seems to work for them, they don't do everything that I would do and I'm sure they believe we don't do everything they.

But I do like Prime Minister's Questions that they do in the House of Commons and getting to hear the the two main political philosophies in Britain: conservatism and socialism. And getting to hear from their Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. I think that's great for democracy, especially voters and to hear where the two main parties are on the issues in their country.

Euro News: 'Israelis Protest About Illegal African Immigrants'

Source:Euro News- with a look at Israel.

"Israelis have taken to the streets to protest about the number of illegal African immigrants living in their neighourhoods in Tel Aviv. 

Officials estimate 60 thousand people have crossed illegally into Israel in recent years via the desert border with Egypt to look for work. Ministers say the influx of African migrants is a threat to public order." 

From Euro News 

"Euronews (styled on-air in lowercase as euronews) is a European television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and covers world news from a European perspective.

The majority of Euronews (88%) is owned by Portuguese investment management firm Alpac Capital[2][3][4] with the rest partly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations.

It is a provider of livestreamed news, which can be viewed in most of the world (with the exceptions of the United States, Canada, Turkey, Singapore, China, Cuba, and North Korea)[citation needed] via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players, including Fubo TV, Sling TV, Pluto TV and Haystack News." 

From Wikipedia

America not the only country with Jewish-African tensions. America is not the only country that has a nationalist-right in it that tends to look down upon immigrants who aren't from the majority racial or ethnic backgrounds of the country. 

Israel is by far the most pro-Jewish country in the world and even though it does have Arab, Greek, and Slavic minorities, it wants to remain the Jewish State of Israel indefinitely.

PBS Newshour: George McGovern & Barry Goldwater: 'On Divisive Politics & '88 Election'

Source:PBS NewsHour- former U.S. Representative and Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) on the PBS NewsHour in 1988.

"On Oct. 13, 1988, only weeks before the presidential election of George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis, former Sens. George McGovern and Barry Goldwater dropped by the MacNeil/Lehrer Report to discuss the state of the race, the divisive politics of their parties and the legacy of conservatism and liberalism." 

From the PBS NewsHour 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and non-commercial,[7][8][9] free-to-air television network[10][11][12][13] based in Arlington, Virginia. PBS is a publicly funded[14] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[15]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[16] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government." 

From Wikipedia 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy." 

From Wikipedia 

"Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices.[1][2] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the status quo of the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[3] Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolved gradually.[2] Adherents of conservatism often oppose progressivism and seek a return to traditional values." 

From Wikipedia

I'll give you Senator George McGovern's definition of what it means to be a Liberal and I'm paraphrasing: 

A Liberal is the champion of the underdog and someone who believes in using government, especially the national government, to meet the needs of the masses. And the supposed underdog in America is everybody between racial and ethnic minorities, to women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, to gays, to the disabled, everyone in America whose faced racial, ethnic, sexual, or discrimination based on sexuality, or social and economic hardship  in America. That's essentially George McGovern't definition of what it means to be a Liberal in America.

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[1] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[2] within a market socialist economy, or an alternative form of decentralised planned socialist economy.[3] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[4] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[5] democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism.[6] Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century." 

From Wikipedia 

Now, if you can tell the political differences between the so-called Modern Liberal (which is just another term for Socialist) and a Democratic Socialist, you must be using, or perhaps have stolen Superman's x-ray vision, because there no real differences. 

The real definition of what it means to be a Liberal (classical or otherwise) is the Wikipedia definition (that I linked on this post) someone who is a champion of individual rights for everyone, not just the special few. Someone who believes in quality of opportunity and freedom and responsibility for everyone, not just the special few

Channel 4 News UK: 'Brazilian Crack Cocaine Epidemic'

Source:Channel 4 News UK- with a look at crack cocaine in Brazil.

"Ahead of the country hosting major international sporting events, Brazil's second city is in the grip of a crack cocaine epidemic." 

From Channel 4 News 

"Channel 4 is a British free-to-air public service television network. Its headquarters are at 124 Horseferry Road, London, with a National HQ[clarification needed] at the Majestic Cinema, Leeds, and creative hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.[1]

It began its transmission on 2 November 1982, the day after Welsh language broadcaster S4C's launch. The channel was established to provide a fourth television service in the United Kingdom; at the time the only other channels were the licence-funded BBC 1 and BBC 2, and a single commercial broadcasting network ITV. It is publicly owned and advertising-funded; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA),[2] the station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,[3] which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993. In 2010, Channel 4 extended service into Wales and became a UK-wide television channel." 

From Wikipedia

It's not just America, Mexico, and Canada that have drug wars.

Jack Hunter: 'President Obama Kept Us Safe'

Source:The American Conservative- from Jack Hunter's page at TAC.

"When I repeatedly denounced George W. Bush’s doubling of the size of government during the last election, Republicans had one primary defense of their president: “Bush kept us safe.” Indeed, little else seemed to matter to most Republicans at the time, as the party rallied around their leader, his record and a GOP presidential nominee who ran on a virtually identical platform. The War on Terror trumped all else, Republicans insisted, as the party devoted itself fully to the Warrior in Chief—who also happened to be one of the most big government presidents in American history.

Last week, President Obama significantly out-Bushed Bush: We killed Osama Bin Laden. Judging by their top priority for most of the last decade, it would seem that most Republicans will now vote for Obama in 2012. Sure, Bush doubled the size of government and the debt. Big deal—we were fighting a War on Terror. Sure, it’s true that Obama is now tripling the size of government and our debt. But so what—President Obama just killed the world’s top terrorist! “Obama kept us safe” might even be enough to carry the president through the next election.

The mindless war rhetoric the GOP cultivated during the Bush years might just be the Democrats’ best election weapon. Just let possible GOP presidential contenders Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney try to bash Obama for only fighting three Middle Eastern wars instead of four (the neoconservatives are dying for a war with Iran). Just try to let Republicans bash Obama for “apologizing” for America, whatever the hell that means. It’s bumper sticker time, baby: “Obama killed Osama!” What’s “weak” about that? How many terrorists have Newt or Mitt killed?

Heading into 2012, could domestic policy once again take a backseat to foreign policy? After all, the “official” estimate for what it cost to kill Bin Laden from 9/11 to last week is $1.28 trillion. This is basically the dollar difference between Bush’s national debt and Obama’s. It seems that “freedom isn’t free”: It cost $1.28 trillion. This is only slightly more than the supposed “official” cost of Obamacare.

The truth is we could have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other Al-Qaeda leaders for significantly less money, without invading Iraq or staying in Afghanistan for a decade, and most importantly, without losing so many American soldiers. Bin Laden was assassinated using military intelligence and a handful of highly trained soldiers, or as columnist George Will noted: “bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation… the enormous military footprint in Afghanistan, next door to bin Laden’s Pakistan refuge, seems especially disproportionate in the wake of his elimination by a small cadre of specialists.”

There is a difference between the very real, if often overblown, war on Islamic terrorism in which we find ourselves, and the War on Terror narrative, in which virtually any foreign policy misadventure can be rationalized by invoking 9/11. But with the mastermind behind 9/11 dead, the question for America is now this: Is it time to come home? And if the death of Bin Laden is not the time, when will that time be?

The death of Bin Laden is a reason for all Americans to celebrate—and the celebration certainly cuts across party lines. But at precisely the moment many Americans and a majority of the Republican Party seem most concerned about the size of government and deficit spending, many conservatives are using the death of Bin Laden to vindicate Bush, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, “enhanced interrogation” and all the rest. This takes us right back to the Bush era contradiction of supposedly being for limited government while supporting leaders who consider it unlimited. “Getting back to the Constitution,” as the Tea Party now demands, is going to be awfully hard while simultaneously defending a president who arguably did more violence to the Constitution than any other.

In the wake of Osama’s death, Republicans have been quick to point out that Obama basically continued Bush’s entire national security agenda, and he did. In fact, he expanded it. But Obama has also carried out and expanded Bush’s domestic agenda. This is not a coincidence. Big government abroad is impossible without big government at home, and both presidents have been unsurprisingly consistent in their statism.

On both domestic and foreign policy, America desperately needs a cost/benefit analysis, not simply a blind defense of cost during a time of national jubilation. The death of America’s top enemy—and the way in which we achieved it—should encourage national reflection and hopefully a major reassessment of what this country can realistically achieve militarily. We should also begin to consider what we can afford and what we cannot.

All Americans should be happy we finally got Bin Laden. No American should be happy with the amount of money we’ve wasted and the number of lives we’ve sacrificed to do so, precisely because most of it wasn’t necessary to get Osama.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security, which means neither Bush or Obama have kept this country safe. Now is not the time to forget it." 

From The American Conservative

Just the fact that a Conservative blogger would be willing to admit that President Obama kept us safe, says it all. No matter what arguments that they make about President Obama's economic record, this is more than Mitt Romney could do. 

Jack Hunter arguing that what Republicans have been arguing that it's OK to be a Big Government, borrow and spend Republican, if you keep America safe. Which is what he's saying that partisan Republicans were saying about President George W. Bush in the 2000s: 

"So what if President Bush doubles the size of the Federal Government and national debt. America is now safer than we were 10 years earlier." I think a lot of Republicans would disagree with Hunter's argument here, but he's right. The Republican Party forgot about, or ignored fiscal responsibility and limited government, once they had The White House and Congress in the 2000s.

Channel 4 News UK: 'Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell Resigns'

Source:Channel 4 News- reporter covering this story.

"Andrew Mitchell resigns over allegations he called police "plebs" - which he denied in a letter to the prime minister, although he admits using the f-word." 

From Channel 4 News 

"Channel 4 is a British free-to-air public service television network. Its headquarters are in London, with a National HQ[clarification needed] in Leeds and creative hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.[1]

It began its transmission on 2 November 1982, the day after Welsh language broadcaster S4C's launch. The channel was established to provide a fourth television service in the United Kingdom; at the time the only other channels were the licence-funded BBC 1 and BBC 2, and a single commercial broadcasting network ITV. It is publicly owned and advertising-funded; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA),[2] the station is now owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation, a public corporation of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,[3] which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993. In 2010, Channel 4 extended service into Wales and became a UK-wide television channel." 

From Wikipedia

I guess Andrew Mitchell needs to learn to watch his fucking language. Or at least not fucking cuss in front of fucking British cops or fucking cuss at fucking British cops. Ot something like that. LOL

Newsmax: John Bachman- U.S. Representative Jim Jordan: 'Welfare Reform Starts With New White House Leadership'

Source:Newsmax- U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (Republican, Ohio) Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee.

"Rep. Jim Jordan: Welfare Reform Starts With New White House Leadership" 

From Newsmax

As Representative Jim Jordan said himself and told Newsmax, the new costs to public assistance in America has to do with the economy. The Great Recession started 4 years ago, we're still at 8% unemployment right now and around 20% poverty in this country. It's not like President Obama and Congress decided to increase the budgets on public welfare and are throwing money at these problems. It's that we have more people unemployed, more people with low-income, low-skilled jobs, and as a result more people who are eligible for public assistance, than we did even 5-6 years ago, or 10-15 years ago.

I also agree with Representative Jordan on how to address these issues. We obviously need a better economy, more people not just working, but working in jobs that makes them economically independent of public assistance. 

But for people who are eligible for public assistance, especially low-skilled adults with kids on those programs, there needs to be work and educational requirements for them so they can start working, but as they are working, they are getting the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and get off of public assistance. While they don't lose their public financial assistance that they need to live, while they're working their low-income jobs and in school to get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and be financially independent.

FOX & Friends: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn: 'Wastebook 2012 on FOX & Friends'

Source:Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) on Fox & Friends.

"(Tuesday, October 16 2012) Senator Coburn on FOX & Friends introducing his fourth annual oversight report highlighting some of the year's most wasteful government spending and abuse of your tax dollars. The report details 100 accounts of taxpayer dollars being used on things like Moroccan pottery classes, Cupcakes stores, specialty pet shampoo and more examples of questionable spending by the federal government totaling nearly $19 billion." 

From Senator Tom Coburn

Senator Tom Coburn and I probably don't agree on any of the social issues, except for maybe civil liberties. But Senator Coburn is a real fiscal Conservative and does an excellent job when it comes to pointing out government waste.

There was a point in my lifetime (all 38 years of it) when the Republican Party was the party of fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. Now they just talk like fiscal Conservatives when there's a Democratic President, especially with a Democratic Congress or a Congress where the Democratic Party is at least in control of the House and Senate. But Senator Coburn has always been in fiscal Conservative, including his whole career in Congress. And is one of the true fiscal Conservatives in Congress today.

Euro News: 'Panama Wants The Euro as Legal Tender'

Source:Euro News- Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli.

"Panama, one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America, wants to adopt the euro as legal tender to run alongside the country's US dollar economy.

President Ricardo Martinelli made the request to German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a visit to Europe."

"Panama is a country where the currency in free circulation is the American dollar and I told the chancellor we are looking for mechanisms for the euro to become another currency of legal tender and for the euro to be accepted in the Panamanian market. We would be possibly the only country in the world to have two currencies- the euro and the dollar," he said.

The president indicated he had every faith that the crisis in the eurozone would soon be at an end. Panama's economy grew by 10.6 per cent last year due to massive infrastructure spending." 

From Euro News 

"Euronews (styled on-air in lowercase as euronews) is a European television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and covers world news from a European perspective.

The majority of Euronews (88%) is owned by Portuguese investment management firm Alpac Capital[2][3][4] with the rest partly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations.

It is a provider of livestreamed news, which can be viewed in most of the world (with the exceptions of the United States, Canada, Turkey, Singapore, China, Cuba, and North Korea)[citation needed] via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players, including Fubo TV, Sling TV, Pluto TV and Haystack News." 

From Wikipedia

Panama looking to expand its market economically.

Washington Examiner: 'Anacostia Riverfront Development'

Source:Washington Examiner- U.S. Representative Donna Edwards (Democrat, Maryland) speaking about this Washington waterfront development.

"Anacostia Riverfront Development" 

From the Washington Examiner

More development in a section of Washington that needs it. As someone whose an avid cyclist, who bikes two miles a day every weekday, or most weekdays and more on the weekends, I have to say that I love this idea. But just economically and financially, this is just something that the City of Washington needs to bring even more people into this big, beautiful, city and give more Americans the opportunity to take advantage of what this great city has to offer and be able to see more of it everyday.

Jack Hunter: 'Neoconservatism is Stupid'

Source:Liberty in Time- Jack Hunter talking about neoconservatism.

"Mitt Romney reminded everyone with his foreign policy speech this week." 

From Liberty in Our Time 

"Neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition." 

Source:Britannica- Jane Kilpatrick I guess is someone that Britannica identifies as a Neoconservative.

From Britannica 

I think before someone talks about Neoconservatives and neoconservatism, they should first know who and what they're talking about. Hopefully that sounds obvious and fair enough. 

Is neoconservatism a national security policy or is a broader political philosophy with a strong and national security and foreign policy that's part of it? I tend to look at it as a broader political philosophy the same way I look at socialism or communism as broader political philosophies as well. The only evidence that you need to know about that is to look at George W. Bush presidency that had that strong, hawkish foreign policy, to go along with a reformist-conservative (progressive-conservative, if you will) economic policy. 

President George W. Bush was never a hard core, right-wing, classical conservative ideologue, at any point during his political career. But someone as President and as Governor of Texas, was a reformist-conservative (Progressive Republican, if you will) as Governor of Texas, who brought those reform-minded reform conservative values to The White House. And became very hawkish on foreign policy and national security after 9/11. So ideologically I would put President Bush down as a Neoconservative Republican, which means he was very hawkish on foreign policy and national security, but very reformist, progressive even (in a Republican sense) on economic and social policy. 

So, my personal definition of a Neoconservative, is a Progressive Republican, or Right-Progressive. Men like Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller fit into this ideological camp. The ideas of Welfare To Work and reforming the private health care and health insurance system, the Patients Bill of Rights, clean air, environmental standards, President Nixon was a pro-civil rights President and so were both President Bush's. School choice both private and public are neoconservative ideas. 

Newt Gingrich at least when he was in the House and even as Speaker was a Progressive Republican, or Neoconservative. Senator Joe Lieberman is a Neoconservative and so is Senator John McCain, even though they're from different parties.  Comprehensive immigration reform is a neoconservative idea, as well as reforming as public assistance system so it moves people out of poverty, with things like child care and job training, school choice for kids of low-income parents, incentivizing work, even low-income work, over not working at all, instead of just subsidizing people while they'll in poverty. Or just slashing and burning programs, which is what Conservatives has traditionally wanted to do with our public assistance programs. Medicare Advantage and giving seniors choice in how they get their health insurance and health care, instead of just eliminating Medicare or nationalizing the entire health insurance or health care system, these are all neoconservative ideas. 

Neoconservatism rose in the 1960s with Richard Nixon and perhaps with Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, as a response to the New Deal and Great Society progressivism from that period. As well as a Center-Right alternative to the rise of Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater, classical conservatism of that period. That George W. Bush and his followers picked up again in the 2000s to respond to the right-wing conservative takeover of the Republican Party, to show Americans that there's a Republican third way in dealing with our domestic and economic issues that a lot of Americans are facing, without looking like Socialists, who just happen to be Republicans. 

To reply to what Jack Hunter said about neoconservatism: I think to label any philosophy outright as stupid, is stupid. So perhaps it takes an idiot to know an idiot. Actually, I don't believe Jack Hunter is an idiot, but there are plenty of people if not a lot of people who are very intelligent that come from all sorts of different political movements and philosophies. 

There are plenty of problems with the neoconservatism as it relates to foreign policy and national security, with their preemptive wars, putting national security over civil liberties, their borrow and spend, supply side economic policy and all the deficits and debt that we're still paying for that. But with one broad stroke to label neoconservatism as stupid, is stupid. 

Johnny Dollar: The Kelly File- Megyn Kelly, Scott Rasmussen & Michael Reagan

Source:Johnny Dollar- Scott Rasmussen, Megyn Kelly, and Michael Reagan.

"Chuck Todd Rips Rasmussen, Rass Responds! Also present: Michael Reagan, Megyn Kelly."

Source:Johnny Dollar

Several reasons why NBC News's Chuck Todd, The Washington Post and others in the so-called mainstream media consider Scott Rasmussen and his Rasmussen Poll partisan and why FNC and Fox News use their polling so much, is because they're partisan. At least in the sense that they tend to poll heavily Republican or Republican leaning areas and then call their polls national. 

Right now only Rasmussen and Fox News views the Romney-Obama race as tight. Most of the polls have President Obama with a clear Electoral College lead, because he's leading Mitt Romney in all of the swing states right now. Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. 

The President could lose both North Carolina and Indiana, which he won in 2008 and still win the Electoral College and be reelected President with a electoral landslide. But Rasmussen and Fox News perhaps because they don't want the Republican vote to feel like the election is over and that President Obama will be reelected, feel the need to make this election look closer than it actually is right now. 

Tom DeWeese: 'The Assault On Our Property Rights'

Source:Still Free To Choose- Tom DeWeese speaking for the New-Right in America.

"Tom DeWeese, American Policy Deweese identifies the assault on private property rights.  Agenda 21, ICLEI.. What's that?  Who's behind it?  Should we be concerned?  Recorded in Portland, OR Sept 22, 2011. More at Oregon Agenda." 

From Still Free To Choose

Ezra Levant: 'Freedom of Speech in Canada'

Source:Idea City- Ezra Levant talking about free speech in Canada.

"Co-founder of the Western Standard magazine, Ezra Levant, discusses freedom of speech in Canada based on his own experience of being hauled before a Canadian human rights commission for printing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the magazine." 

From Idea City

PBS NewsHour: 'Bush vs. Dukakis: The first 1988 Presidential Debate'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) vs Governor Michael Dukakis (Democrat, Massachusetts) in 1988.

"The 1988 presidential election cycle featured Vice President George H.W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. The first debate was a 90-minute discussion, focusing on foreign and domestic policy. Moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS, with questions posed by a panel of journalists, it took place on September 15, 1988, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

This content is brought to you as part of a PBS NewsHour project to make all presidential and vice presidential debates available to watch online." 

From the PBS NewsHour

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor[6] based in Arlington, Virginia. PBS is a publicly funded[7] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[8]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[9] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government." 

From Wikipedia

Reagan Foundation: 1984 Presidential Candidate Debate- President Ronald Reagan vs Walter Mondale

Source: Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) debating Walter Mondale (Democrat, Minnesota) in 1984.

"The full-length 1984 Presidential Candidate Debate between President Reagan and Walter Mondale on 10/7/84."

Source:Reagan Foundation 

I just saw this debate Saturday, because I knew I would probably be blogging about it this week. This was the debate that Walter Mondale was remembered for looking really strong and quick. Able to go toe-to-toe with the President of the United States and actually beat him. While Ronald Reagan, looked old, slow and unsure of himself and how to answer the questions. 

President Reagan, clearly didn't look good in the first debate, but didn't look as bad as he tends to be remembered. His answers were somewhat slow and so-forth, but he answered the questions and didn't take any shots from Vice President Mondale lying down. He took them on and threw some back as well.

But Fritz Mondale just looked good the whole night, while admitting that the economy had definitely improved from four years earlier. That the economy wasn't as strong as it needed to be and that we paid a heavy price for the recovery that we were going through. Increases in debt and deficit and: "If we continued to allow those things rise, we would pay for it in high interest and inflation rates later on." He was right, because the Stock Market crashed just three years later in 1987. The economy slowed in 1989 and of course we had a recession in 1990-91.

This was Fritz Mondale's opportunity to get back in the race. He was down 10-15 points going into this debate and took advantage of it. He brought President Reagan's lead down a bit and had he had a great debate in the second debate, he could've prevented the landslide that came and could've made it a very tight race. 

Mondale's second debate wasn't bad, but President Reagan just bounced back and had a very good debate as well with the memorable line when he was asked about his age, suggesting that he might be too old for President, by saying that: "I'm not going to make age an issue in this election and exploit Fritz Mondale's youth an inexperience." 

Whether voters decided that Fritz Mondale would've been a better President or not, what they did decide, was that they liked Ron Reagan more and liked where the country was going and headed and weren't ready to fire President Reagan.

Human Events: John Gizzi- 'Best Debate Moments': Mike Dukakis in 1988

Source:Human Events- Governor Michael Dukakis (Democrat, Massachusetts) at the 1988 presidential debate against Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Maine)

"#3: What if some criminal raped and murdered Dukakis' wife, Kitty. Would Dukakis still oppose capital punishment? Michael Dukakis's unemotional response is our #3 debate moment.

John Gizzi counts down the Top 10 Debate moments in our multi-part series "Presidential Debates: How they changed the race." 

From Human Events 

Mike Dukakis had one more opportunity to turn a presidential election, he should've won at least going in around in the presidential debates and used those opportunities to let the Americans know more about him, that he wasn't cold and could connect with people in a personal positive way. 

But Governor Dukakis blew that when Bernie Shaw of CNN asked him a gotcha question, by bringing his wife into it, about the death penalty. It was sort of no win situation for Governor Dukakis, because it was a gotcha question about his wife of all people but he could've avoided losing it as well and instead of trying to make it a question about policy, he should've took the question for what it was, which was a personal gotcha question and should've answered about how he would feel, if his wife was raped and murdered. And what he feel should be done to the person responsible for the crimes. 

But instead Governor Dukakis used it as an opportunity to explain his opposition on the death penalty, an issue at least back then where a large majority of Americans were in favor of the death penalty.