Youth Justice NC: North Carolina's School to Prison Pipeline

Source:The FreeState

If you look at our current prison inmate population, you’ll see a lot of prison inmates who didn’t finish high school before they came to prison, or barely finished high school. If you look at a lot of our juvenile inmate population, kids that should be in school, but because of their bad behavior and committing felony’s while still being juveniles, or have been expelled from high school. You see a lot of juveniles that our education system hasn’t reached yet. 

You see people who are headed down the road of starting criminal careers and entering our criminal justice system as adults. After they’ve committed crimes against society. If you look at our criminal gangs, organized crime families, you see a lot of people who dropped out of high school to become a criminals. And of course end up in jail or prison at some point in their careers.

So I believe the answers to solving the problems of overcrowded prisons and bringing down our prison population in the future are fairly simple. But hard to apply and it gets to public education. Quality public education, graduating more students from high school with good educations, so they can move on to college, vocational school, the military, law Enforcement, foreign service, to use as examples. 

So they can go down the road of becoming productive citizens in society and not becoming criminals by simply preventing crimes in the future by preventing people from becoming criminals. And that gets to a better public education system, including educating our juvenile offenders before they become career criminals. Crime prevention really is about public education. 

I would argue especially for students in low-income high crime areas. Where there may be more opportunities to get involved in organized crime. So the better we educate our students and the more students we reach, the less career criminals we’ll have in the future.

Max Power: The Kitchen Debate: Richard Nixon vs. Nikita Khrushchev

Source:The FreeState

The friendly TV debate that then United States Vice President Richard Nixon had with then Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev, was entertaining and important to the extent, that at least America and Europe could see some of the differences between the superpowers. That America wasn’t just a Superpower when it came to our military and diplomatic power. But we were an economic power as well. And that Russia was basically a third world nation, behind the rest of the Developed World in a lot of areas. 

That Russia's living standards were much lower than Europe, Canada and America. And this had to do with the fact that Russia was a communist state and America is a liberal democracy. The main reason why America, Canada, Europe and Japan were so far ahead of Russia during the Cold War and now, has to do with the fact, that we are free. We are all democracies economically and socially. We all have plenty of freedom to live our own lives. 

And in America especially where Europe tends to be more generous with their safety nets, Americans tend to be held responsible with the decisions that we make in life. Wheres the Soviet Union, most of the power in the country was centralized with the State. They were held with most of the authority to govern the country and responsible for looking after their people. Providing them with jobs, education, healthcare etc.

Vice President Nixon did an effective job in this debate of laying out some of the differences between America and Russia and where we were ahead of them and with space. Where Russia was ahead of us, which we turned around in the 1960s and debates like this are important. Especially if they are done in a respectful way.

Human Events: John Stossel: 'The Economy Needs No Conductor'

Source:The FreeState.  

There’s been this endless debate in America in the last few years about what creates economic and job growth. Is it the private sector or public sector. Does government actually create any jobs, well the answer to that question is yes. In the sense that they create government jobs that can contribute to private sector job growth, by rewarding contract to the private sector that then hire additional workers. To perform the new work that their contract requires, to complete the new work. 

But what really creates jobs, is consumer demand. When people need to buy things or want to buy things and have the money to do so, then they go out and buy those things, which leads to economic and job growth to meet the new consumer demand. The way to create job growth, is through economic growth. And government can help and hurt in several ways.

They can help buy keeping taxes down, so consumers have money to spend.

Only having needed regulations that can be understood and doesn’t make employers jobs even harder. And make their cost of doing business more expensive.

And they can help with things like infrastructure investment that creates work for construction companies and builds and repairs, new roads and bridges around the country. So people can get around in an efficient way.

They can help with Energy Policy, by allowing the American energy industry to capitalize and produce all the natural resources we have in America.

Where government can hurt the economy, is through over taxing. For example passing Tax Hikes on people who can’t afford to pay them. So now they have even less money to spend.

Over regulating to the point that no one understands the regulations and they aren’t even be enforced. Because government doesn’t even understand them.

And they can hurt the economy by overspending. Running up huge debt and deficits, driving up our interest rates. Making everything more expensive for everyone. Which results in everyone spending less money. Which is what happened in the recession of the early 1980s and early 1990s. And they can hurt by not trading enough and over taxing private companies. Making their cost of business more expensive.

It's really consumer demand thats what drives economic growth, that leads to job growth. So as long as people have incentive to spend money and have the money to spend, then they’ll do those things. So what government can do, is try to ensure that consumer spending is always high. That we always have a need to spend money.

CSPAN: Hustler Magazine vs. Jerry Falwell: Pornography & The First Amendment

Source:The FreeState 

Interesting case whatever your position on pornography is whether you think it should be legal or not. Or whether you enjoy it or not which isn’t the question. But the real question in this case is should it be legal or not based on the United States Constitution and what also makes this an interesting case is that it affects two amendments to our Constitution. Which affects our right to free speech and expression and our right to privacy. 

The First Amendment which of course guarantees our right to free expression and speech. And our Right to Privacy what people are able to do in their private lives and own homes. And does the rights to free speech and expression as well as privacy include pornography. Do Americans have the constitutional right to be involved in pornography or not. And manage their own private affairs themselves. Or does government have the right and responsibility to intervene in one's own private affairs.

Rina Palta: ACLU: Counties Opting For Incarceration, Not Rehabilitation

Source:The FreeState 

California has so many people in their corrections system as far as inmates. And so many inmates that they are now under a court order to reduce the size of their inmate population. Not by accident because they arrest too many people. Fill up their prisons with inmates, basically just warehousing them. There are some exceptions and are left to wonder what to do with them once they reach overcrowding, for a State thats apparently as blue as California, That hasn’t voted Republican for President since 1988, they have a lot of “Bad Laws”, they simple incarcerate too many people who don’t represent a major threat to society. And after they do incarcerate these people, they don’t do a lot to prepare them for once they are released from prison.

California has what I would call a non-violent offender crisis. They incarcerate way too many people for drug abuse and drug obsession, when getting these people into drug rehab and halfway houses at their expense would save California taxpayers a lot of money. California had an opportunity to repeal one of their “Bad Laws” in 2010. To decriminalize marijuana and stop arresting people for use or possession of marijuana, which would’ve save their corrections system and Law enforcement billions of dollars, but that failed. 

And California is back where they started. But they could do things like drug rehab and halfway houses at the inmates expense. For Petty Offenders, people who are in prison for dumb mistakes. Like shoplifting and Drug Crimes. California could save its corrections system and law enforcement billions of dollars just with sentencing reform, keeping a lot of their non-violent Offenders out of prison and into halfway houses or drug rehab at the offenders expense. 

This would save California a lot of prison space for people who need to be there, putting their inmates to work and paying them so they can cover their cost of living and repealing their bad laws. And they would dramatically lower the size of their inmate population and still be able to protect the state.

Teshia Naidoo: Sane Drug Laws

Source:The FreeState

California is the perfect example of why and how the War on Drugs in America is stupid. This is a State thats swamped in debt, that still has double figure unemployment. That still has a high crime rate and one of the highest inmate populations per-capita in the country as well as the largest inmate population in numbers. They are also one of the highest taxed states, so if I was a Californian I would be asking why, I’m not getting much of a bang for my tax bucks.  

And yet California has been doing the same things for the last ten years. They recalled GOV. Grey Davis partially because of its debt issues and the economy wasn’t doing very well. Ten years later they are still facing the same problems and have even more people locked up in this State. If I was a Californian, I would want my State Government to look at what its doing. Admit the obvious finally and change course. Find ways to get more out of the taxes that Californians are forced to pay every year. And its corrections system, probably the most expensive in the Union, is a great first place to start and overhaul it.  

Start with the War on Drugs, stop arresting free adults for smoking or possessing marijuana. Stop sending heroin and cocaine addicts to prison and get them in drug rehab at their expense. Stop sending non-violent offenders to prison who don’t represent a major threat to society. And get them in halfway houses at their expense. Stop sending these people to prison and save the prisons for the offenders who need to be there. 

With GOV. Jerry Brown being a former Attorney General, he should know exactly how overcrowded their corrections system is and that it needs to be reformed and be more cost- effective. And hopefully he’ll put in the reforms to make that happen and save Californian Tax Payers billions of dollars.

The Street: Joseph Deaux: 'A Brokered GOP Convention is Very Unlikely'

Source:The FreeState

If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know that a month or go or so I suggested that Rick Santorum end his presidential campaign and endorse Newt Gingrich. So the right-wing could unite behind one presidential candidate. And unite against what they see as a Damn Yankee Northeastern Republican. Who they believe doesn’t share their values, because he’s not a big Government republican looking to impose his values on the rest of the country. 

Senator Santorum doesn’t seem to be interested in social issues at all except when he talks to Religious Conservatives. Well all of these Far-Right big government groups are now backing Rick Santorum. Because they see him as someone who can win and will say whatever it takes to get their support, unlike Mitt Romney. Keep in mind these blogs about the Republican Party and the right-wing are coming from a Liberal Democrat who’s also a political junky. And a big reason why I blog about these things. 

But also keep in mind, without Newt’s lousy debate performance back in February, chances are he probably wins Florida or comes damn close. And the GOP establishment might be looking for a new frontrunner at this moment. And Newt might be the frontrunner that the rest of the GOP Is, pardon the expression, shitting bricks terrified about right now. But that didn’t happen, the bad debate in Florida, followed by the Romney attack machine taking him down. After that, ended whatever chances of Newt Gingrich winning the GOP nomination.

If Rick Santorum wins Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi, all of them Tuesday, Newt if he still gives a damn about the Republican Party would be smart to drop his presidential campaign. Endorse Rick Santorum and allow for Rick to build off of that momentum. And prepare for the Texas Primary. If Rick were to win Louisiana and Texas as well, we might have a new Republican presidential race. But with Rick and Newt competing for the same voters and everyone else voting for Mitt, Mitt Romney sails to the Republican Nomination.

Daniel Halper: 'Newt Looking to Deliver Knockout Punch in Florida'

Source:The FreeState

I don’t see Newt Gingrich delivering a “knockout punch” in South Carolina for Florida, but with Speaker Gingrich’s overwhelmingly victory tonight in South Carolina, it does change the political landscape for the GOP presidential race. Last week we I guess, the political pundits, were talking about South Carolina as the state that Mitt Romney is going to wrap up the GOP nomination for President. Because he had a big clear victory in New Hampshire. 

And all the momentum that Mitt needed to move on from there to get the GOP nomination and then move to concentrate on the President. Because Governor Romney was able to open up a big lead in South Carolina. So what happened, a few things. Newt has two great debates, Monday and Thursday nights last week. Mitt has a mediocre debate on Monday night and a bad debate Thursday night. Newt whips Mitt on the national stage where South Carolina is watching. Plus Mitt’s tax returns didn’t help as well.

My issues with Mitt Romney have always been with his honesty. Is he saying what he believes or what he thinks we want to hear. I believe Mitt is running for President for the right reasons. He believes America is in trouble etc and wants to help. And that his career in corporate America and experience can fix the problems. But Mitt has gone about it the wrong way, his whole strategy seems to be is to say "what it takes to get the job and then when you get the job" do what you think is right".  

That campaign strategy just doesn’t work in American politics. He just doesn’t seem to have a message of other, than he’s the best person for the job. But what he doesn’t understand, is to get the job you have to prove you're the best candidate for it. And Newt has capitalized on Mitt’s weakness’s at least for this week. Newt Gingrich should have some momentum going into Florida. And if he does well in the Monday night debate, may take the lead or pull very close to Mitt Romney. 

The Romney Campaign has already announced their strategy for taking down Newt and will have new attack ads focusing on Speaker Gingrich’s Speakership and leadership. And Newt is going to have to be prepared for that and be able to fight back against those political attacks and winning South Carolina should help the Gingrich Campaign with their fundraising. So Florida should be very interesting and as a political junky I’m looking forward to it.

Reagan Foundation: Governor Ronald Reagan vs President Jimmy Carter: 10/28/1980

Source:Reagan Foundation-

Source:The FreeState

How times have changed for the Republican Party. Because back in 1980 they actually did have a Conservative Republican leading their ticket. And leading them back into power in the White House and Senate. After spending another four years as they spent eight years, in the 1960s as the opposition minority party in the United States. With Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress.

Back then the GOP had a Conservative Republican, because Ronald Reagan actually understood what conservatism is, which is how Barry Goldwater laid it out as conserving the individual liberty of individuals. Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms, letting free people live their own lives. Not using government to try to control how people lived their lives. Which is what we see with the GOP today, with its Religious and Neoconservatives. The same-sex marriage debate case in point.

This is the perfect time to be talking about Ron Reagan, since it would be his 103rd Birthday this year. And since he was the best Republican President we’ve had since Dwight Eisenhower and the best Republican President we’ve had since. And George W. Bush being the worst President we’ve had since, well maybe all-time. Ron Reagan described his politics as libertarian as late as 1975. He backed Barry Goldwater for President in 1964.

Politically its hard to tell the differences between Goldwater and Reagan. Except for maybe foreign policy, Reagan I believe became a classical Conservative, because what he saw in the 1960s what he saw as the growth of big government with the Great Society, but he also saw the growth of big government in the late 1970s, in California. That in 1978 passed a law that would allow employers to fire homosexuals just because they are gay. And he disagreed with that law.

The Christian Right came to power and influence in American politics in the late 1970s. Perhaps even as early as the mid 1970s, with Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Arguing against things like homosexuality and pornography, arguing for censorship of certain forms of entertainment, that of course they see as immoral. And even though President Reagan would talk to these groups, he played them like a politician, he knew he needed their votes. But never gave them anything, unlike Republican politicians today who don’t seem to be able to say no to these Far-Right big government groups. And that’s how the GOP is different today.
Source:Reagan Foundation

Andrew Kaczynski: U.S. Representative Speaking Against the House Democrats Budget (1982)

Source:The FreeState

Back in the day when Newt Gingrich was a Junior Representative in the House and I would argue up to a certain extent even when then Minority Whip Gingrich became Speaker of the House, even though to a certain extent, getting in the bed with the Christian Right, Newt Gingrich was a Reagan Republican. Someone who believed in limited government and that Uncle Sam shouldn’t be telling Americans how to live their lives.  

Who believed in decentralizing the Federal Government and balances budgets, tax relief, strong defense, but he was more progressive than President Reagan on welfare policy. He did believe in welfare reform before it became popular. Where President Reagan basically just wanted to gut the safety net. But Representative Gingrich was basically a Reagan Republican in the 80s and 90s.

Three months ago I thought Newt Gingrich on paper anyway would be the best Republican to take on President Obama. Not just in the debates, but Speaker Gingrich would’ve had the Republican base behind him. And had he did a better job in the Florida debate in January. Maybe he’s not the frontrunner right now, but based on how he’s ran this his campaign ever since, its almost impossible to make a credible case that he would be the strongest Republican today. 

But unlike Mitt Romney, Newt is someone thats trusted by the entire Republican Party. By Reagan Conservatives, the Tea Party, Religious Conservatives, Neoconservatives. Even Libertarians have a certain respect for Newt. The thing you get with Newt Gingrich, similar to Barry Goldwater, is someone who speaks his mind and is not worried about offending people. Including Republicans, so he’s clearly not a smooth politician. Which is a big reason why he’s fallen down so far. Finishing fourth in one of the primary’s last week.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Newt Gingrich, Where is the GOP Headed?

Source:The FreeState

Not really Newt Gingrich himself, but his movement and followers represented where the Republican Party was headed post Ronald Reagan. Not George H.W. Bush who succeeded President Reagan as President, but didn’t offer a vision other than maybe on foreign policy. Of where he would take the GOP with him. President Bush was more of an operator or pragmatist as President. 

George H.W. Bush took  issues and problems as they came up, but not having a set of ideas and policies, or direction where he wanted to take the Republican Party. Whereas Newt Gingrich and his Conservative Opportunity Society group had a vision where they wanted to take the Republican Party. That later became known as the Contract with America in 1995. Shortly after being elected to the House in 1978, December, 1978, Rep. Elect Newt Gingrich when House Republicans were still in the minority. 

The House GOP had around 160 or so seats during the Carter Administration. They put together working groups that would work on bringing a House majority for the GOP. Raising money recruiting like-minded candidates, putting together and agenda. That they would try to pass, that later became the CWA of 1995-96. But it took them sixteen years to get there. But only he and his group believed they had any shot of taking back the majority. This was back in the day when the House Republicans had for the most part had around 160-180 seats, the late 1970s and 1980s. 

And House Democrats controlled the House since 1955. I don’t agree with Newt on much and he has personal characteristics that I don’t like, but I respect him a lot as a political strategist. Probably the best we’ve had since Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. He could see things happening that no one else could. Because he knew how to get there and deserves a lot of credit for that. 

Yuram Abdullah Weiler: Profit From Prisons: How UNICOR Capitalizes On Inmate Labor

Source:The FreeState

The United States has a high convict recidivism rate, i.e., a large percentage of our prison inmates come back to prison after they finish their sentences.   70 % of ex-convicts return to prison. We also have a relatively large prison population.  About 1 of every 100 Americans is either in prison, on parole, or under some other type of supervised probation.

Because of these factors, we have high prison costs.  Prisons, as they are currently structured do not pay for themselves. There are a few exceptions to that among state prisons that are like family farms.  There are a few prisons in Louisiana where inmates work full-time producing food and other products for the institution but also to sell on the market and to other government agencies.

This post is about how to reduce the recidivism rate, the prison population and the associated  high costs.  The first step is educating the inmates who've decided that they want to improve themselves and end their criminal careers.  Once they have marketable skills, they can  work in prison factories and other prison business's and make a living for themselves and their families.

We should make prison industries real enterprises producing products for the prisons but also for other government agencies and the open market as well.  Local business could manage these industries  using the inmate population as their staff.  Instead of paying the inmates 20 cents or a dollar an hour, as is done now, they could pay them the local going rate for the work that they do. 

Sean Hannity: 'Maybe it’s Time For a New Conservative Party’

Source:Freedoms Lighthouse- right-wing radio talk show host Sean Hannity.

Source:The FreeState

"Sean Hannity reacting to the GOP Establishment's apparent decision to capitulate to Obama and the Democrats on both the Government Shutdown and the Debt Limit increase." 

From Freedoms Lighthouse

"Time for a new political party", when was the last time someone said that? Perhaps 5 minutes ago and I just haven't had time to catch it. 

Perhaps the main difference other than not being in leadership and having a real seat at the negotiating table, but one of the main differences between being in the establishment, (an adult in the room) whether you are talking about a political party or any other major organization, that's made up of different philosophical factions in it, like a large political party and being a radical whose looking in (because you are not even allowed in the room) is that leadership has to govern and get things done. 

Because leadership has to govern, they get to make deals and work things out with people that they wouldn't normally choose to have to work with. Like Republican leaders negotiating with Democratic leaders, the latest debt ceiling and government shutdown being the latest example of that. 

Whereas the radical (right or left) at the end of the day doesn't has to govern. They don't even have to vote. They can make all the crazy statements that they want and raise as much money and get as much free airtime as they want (especially if they're not trying to become a party leader) and it doesn't make a bit of difference. Their party leadership already thinks that they're crazy, irresponsible, and perhaps drunk and high as well. And their base just loves them even more, perhaps because they seem crazy, irresponsible, drunk, and high, but only all the time.

What the Sean Hannity's of the world apparently still don't understand, is that the Republican Party has less political power today, than they did even a year ago. Fewer seats in the House, perhaps more competitive seats on their side, especially because of the Tea Party government shutdown. 

The Democratic Party has a reelected President in Barack Obama, who doesn't have to worry about his next election, because he just had his last one. And a Democratic Senate with 55 seats, with all 55 members and perhaps even a few Republicans even before the shutdown ended, who wants the shutdown over because they think shutting down the government and risking a government default, over ObamaCare, is mind bogglingly stupid. Something that could get them nominated to the National Morons Convention. (If there is such a thing) 

But again, Sean Hannity is a radical who doesn't have any seat in government at all, let alone at the negotiating table and is free to say whatever the hell he wants too, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

The American Conservative: Daniel McCarthy: 'Why The Shutdown is a Disaster For Small-Government Principles'

Source:U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas)

Source:The FreeState

"The measure of a party’s commitment to limiting government is what it does in power. In opposition a party can do a few things, but obviously not as much as when it wields both executive and legislative authority.

By that criterion, what is one to make of the Republican Party?

With one house of one branch of government under its control, the GOP is fighting desperately to stop an expansion of social insurance—Obamacare—and might like to cut non-defense spending as well. Because holding the House of Representatives is not enough to repeal legislation, the GOP has to resort to more drastic steps—refusing to pass a continuing resolution to fund government if Obamacare is part of the CR. And now the party is signaling a refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless it gets something in return. Without a debt-ceiling hike, the federal government begins to default in about a week.

But no problem: shouldn’t a small-government party be happy to close the government for a while, showing everyone just which employees are “essential”? And isn’t the national debt something a small-government party wants to see capped and paid down, not constantly raised?

This would all make sense—Republicans are a small-government party, standing for principle—if not for what Republicans actually do when they are the party in power.

Obamacare is a bad law that addresses a real problem: everyone needs healthcare, insurance is a way of meeting unknown future needs, yet not everyone had insurance. By contrast, Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug add-on to Medicare passed by a Republican House and signed into law by a Republican president in 2003, was gratuitous: a new benefit for the wealthiest age cohort. But the small-government party supported it. And as is well known, Medicare Part D is but an outward and visible sign of the GOP’s overall spending tendencies the last time the party held power.

The story that voters are told today, both by Republicans themselves and by a mainstream media that views Republicans in general as extremely anti-government, is that the party has changed over the last five years. Whatever a Republican House may have done in 2003 just isn’t relevant to what a different Republican House wants in 2013.

There are two problems with that storyline. First, the 2003 Republican House was a continuation of the 1990s Republican House, which also shut down the government in a spending battle with a Democratic president. Something must have happened between 1995 and 2003 that led the Republican House to change its philosophy. In fact, several things happened, but the most important was the election of a Republican president in 2000. A Republican House would not have been eager to pass something like Medicare Part D under a Democratic president.

So if the small-government 1995 Republicans became the big-spending 2003 Republicans, what reason is there to believe that small-government 2013 Republicans won’t become big-spending 2017 or 2021 Republicans?

The second problem with the story that says Republicans have changed is that for all the new blood that has come into the congressional GOP, the party’s leaders—elected by its members, of course—are much the same people responsible for the 2003 Republican Party. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan—the GOP’s present House and Senate leaders and its 2012 vice presidential nominee—all voted for Medicare Part D. The party’s 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, instituted his own Obamacare-like system as governor of Massachusetts. This is a surprising leadership cadre for a party that’s supposed to be radically different in 2013 from what it was in 2003.

Instead of “Republicans have really changed,” a more plausible story is, “Republicans are pretty much the same,” both in key personnel and in principle. The principle the party has lived by in 1995, in 2003, and in 2013 is that Republican presidents and their policies are good, Democratic presidents and their policies are bad. The size of government or the national debt is a secondary concern, if that. The real test is what a party does when it holds power, not how desperately it struggles when the other party has power.

How does Ted Cruz fit into this? Although he worked for the George W. Bush Justice Department, he’s only been in the Senate while Obama has been in office, so whether his behavior would be the same under a Republican president is an open question. There were anti-spending Republicans who in 2003 voted against Bush’s entitlement expansion—Ron Paul and Jim DeMint among them—and there are others today, such as Justin Amash, who have shown an independent streak that suggests they would behave under a president from their own party as they do under one from the other party.

But the consistent faction in the 2003 GOP was not setting the party’s direction then, and today’s insurgents have yet to gain a foothold in leadership that suggests they will set the agenda in the future—however useful they may be to the party’s confrontational strategy whenever a Democrat is in office.

The GOP won’t be a serious small-government party until it attains power and has actually wielded that power to implement significant reforms and reductions. Everything that’s happening now is just theater—whatever the outcome of the present standoff, even if the House Republicans get everything they want, it could all be undone by another big-government Republican president and compliant Congress. The opposite is also true: if small-government Republicans get nothing out of this battle—if a clean CR and debt-ceiling hike pass—they would still have an opportunity to get what they want the next time they win national power, assuming they’re serious about what they want—more serious the GOP proved to be under Bush.

The question now becomes whether the shutdown and prospect of a default is increasing or decreasing the chances of Republicans gaining power nationally. About that, there’s not much doubt: these antics are hurting Republicans nationally more than Democrats. This doesn’t matter so much for retaining control of the House—Democrats won more votes for the House last year but Republicans maintained control because of the way districts are configured—but it does matter in terms of winning the White House. (What the shutdown and default mean for control of the Senate can be argued either way.)

If small-government Republicans, however many of them there are, are undercutting the chances of getting a president who could actually achieve their major goals by today fighting unpopular battles over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling, are they really serious small-government politicians after all? At the very least, they would be short-sighted and ineffective small-government politicians; at worst, they would be mere actors, mouthing the lines and even performing small-government actions, but actions of no long-term substance.

Reducing and restructuring government is going to take time and careful planning, but what we see from the Republicans—abetted by certain activist groups and entertainers who feed off over-emotional listeners, viewers, and donors—is a party whose leadership and record in power is big government and whose committed small-government faction is crippling rather than augmenting its appeal to the country as a whole. This is a recipe for defeat of the small-government faction in future presidential nominating contests—where the Republican Party has shown a longstanding preference for candidates who seem like they can win over centrist voters—and that means even if a Republican can win the White House again in the near future, he’s more likely to be a Republican in the Bush mold.

The challenge for small-government Republicans today—the principled, consistent, and serious ones—is to win over the center of the country and a national electorate. Does the shutdown, let alone a threat of default, really help with that?" 

From The American Conservative

"Peter King Slams GOP 'Terror Politics' on Government Shutdown" 

Source:DNC Press- U.S. Representative Peter King (Republican, New York)

From DNC Press

I saw and interview on CNN’s The Situation Room today. And Wolf Blitzer who was interviewing Republican Representative Peter King, a Conservative Republican by any standard outside of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, who basically said this that he’s voted against the Affordable Care Act (what Republicans like to call ObamaCare) every chance he’s gotten. 

But for Republicans to get what they want, they need more power. That they do not have the power to get what they want, which is to eliminate the ACA and downsize the Federal Government to the vision that Barry Goldwater had for it when he wrote his famous book. And ran for President and when the modern conservative movement lets say was being built in the 1960s.

The American people, in poll after poll have spoken about ObamaCare and said they still do not like the law. But aren’t willing to shut the government down just to see if they can repeal, or defund it. Which is what House Republicans are trying to do right now which is to see how can they push the American economy to the cliff, before Democrats retreat. And give them exactly what they want for the good of the country. 

The country has spoken about ObamaCare and they didn’t like it when it was passed. So the threw out sixty-two House Democrats where most of them probably voted for the ACA. And gave House Republicans a sizable majority for 2011-12. But the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken about the ACA as well and ruled it constitutional.

We had a general election in 2012, both the president and Congress and the American people spoke again. And reelected President Obama overwhelmingly the man who signed the Affordable Care Act into law and campaigned on it. When he ran for president in 2007-08 and ran on it again when he ran for reelection in 2011-12. 

Then you look at the Congressional elections, Senate Democrats not only still control the Senate, but added two seats to their majority. Again they all voted for the ACA and the members who were elected in 2012 support the ACA as well. A bill that is still unpopular in most polls in the country but gaining support. Republicans still hold the House, but lost eight seats and now are in danger of losing their majority all together in 2012. Thanks to the government shutdown over ObamaCare.

House Republicans, especially the leadership say well they were reelected to. The problem with that argument is that they weren’t reelected to do everything that they want to do. Their voters in their little House districts may have reelected them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare. But the rest of the country didn’t give them the power to do that. 

So it is very simple for Republicans going forward. We have a divided government, but Republicans have the smaller share of this divide. Which means they simply do not have the power to get everything they want. And for them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare, they simply need to take back the Senate and White House while holding the House. And they won’t get that opportunity until the 2016 general elections. Short of that, they need to work with Democrats on things they can work on, or risk losing whatever power they still have.

The Wall Street Journal: Holman Jenkins: The Shutdown GOP Victories?

Source:Wall Street Journal- U.S. Speaker of The House John Boehner (Republican, Ohio)

Source:The FreeState

Business World columnist Holman Jenkins on how Republicans can negotiate their way to serious reform—little by little." 

From The Wall Street Journal

Only Libertarians or Anarchists think shutting down the government and not opening up is a good thing. Because they obviously tend not to like government or be in favor of government and tend to see most of what government does as some violation of their freedom and constitutional rights. Especially as it relates to taxes. And shutting down government seems to be a good thing for them. 

But for the rest of the country, who not only pays for and consumes public services, shutting down the government especially over one issue like the Affordable Care Act, looks crazy. And House Republicans and their allies in the Senate are going to pay for it.

What House Republicans haven’t figured out that is that even though we do have a divided government, they have the smaller portion. 

Imagine sharing a pie with someone and you only get 1/3 of the pie and the person you’re sharing the pie gets the other two-thirds. And the person with bigger portion says: "We’re sharing this pie equally." I would say something like: "Who you think you’re fooling? Your portion is obviously much bigger than mine." 

Republicans won back the House of Representatives in 2010, but that is the only thing they won. The lower chamber in Congress, with the Democrats still controlling the upper chamber the Senate. With a bigger majority in the Senate today than they had in the 112th Congress.

When the party that has the bigger portion of government that has a lot more power in the executive and the Senate, makes it clear that they’re not going to let you eliminate their biggest accomplishment at least since Medicare in 1965 and they have the power to stop you, you need to take that seriously. Especially when you’re responsible for funding the U.S. Government. 

The appropriations and budget process starts in the House after the President submits his budget. The House is required to pass these bills. And when you attach something like a repeal or defunding of ObamaCare to the budget that you know the Senate won’t pass and the President won’t sign, you create major political problems for yourself.

What House Republicans need to learn, especially their GOP Leadership, is that they simply don’t have the power to do what they want to do. They won’t have that power in 2015 either, even if they win back the Senate and hold onto the House, or add to their majority. 

Eliminating the Affordable Care Act is simply a non-starter with Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration. Just like an across the board tax increase would be a non-starter with Congressional Republicans. 

So what House Republicans need to do is fund the government and get an agreement with Senate Democrats and the President to do that. Which includes funding ObamaCare. And if they have a Republican Congress and Republican President in 2017, then they could repeal ObamaCare, but not now.

Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson: John Micheltwait & Clark Judge: ‘The Conservative Ascendancy’

Source:Hoover Institution- author John Micheltwait.

Source:The FreeState 

“A half-century ago, the ideology of the American political establishment was liberal—the New Deal was still new and big government was getting bigger. Today, after a political revolution that began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, it may be argued that conservativism has become the dominant ideological force in American politics. But what does conservativism mean today? And if it is ascendant, how long can it remain so? Peter Robinson speaks with Clark S. Judge and John Micklethwait.” 

From Hoover Institution 

If you are going to use political labels, you need to use them correctly. I know I'm stubborn on this, but I hate hearing about how conservative someone is who bases if not their entire political ideology, on their fundamentalists views on religion and culture, as well as race and ethnicity and women's place in the world. 

I hate hearing about how liberal someone is, who believes there's no such thing as high taxes, regardless of how high they are and that there's basically nothing that government can't do for people and that masculinity is dangerous, European-Americans are essentially bad people, etc. 

What you get in this debate from the so-called Conservatives here, is that conservative is right and that liberal is left. That conservative represents America in America and liberal represents Britain and Europe in America ideologically. When the fact is, Conservatives and Liberals (at least in the classical, if not real sense) have a lot in common ideologically. They are both considered center-right in Europe and probably the rest of the developed world, at least outside of America. 

I agree with Perter Robinson, John Micheltwait, and Clark Judge, that America is essentially a center-right country. But you need to know what center-right is: 

Americans tend to believe in both personal and economic freedom, meaning property rights. 

Americans tend to love the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the individual rights that come with it, al those values being liberal values, like free speech, the right to self-defense, right to privacy, checks and balances, free press, property rights, federalism, equal rights, equal justice, etc. 

The reason why I say that Liberals and Conservatives aren't left and right, but both center-right, because they believe in the same constitutional and ideological values, at least when you look at what liberal and conservative is in the classical sense, which is the real sense with me. Liberal vs Conservative, is not hippie versus redneck, but instead Liberals tend to believe in progress and Conservatives tend to be a lot more methodical, before they decide to move forward.

James Miller Center: President Gerald Ford: Address on Energy Policy (1975)

Source:James Miller Center- President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) speaking about energy policy in 1975.

Source:The FreeState

"President Gerald Ford proposes ways to address the growing energy crises, and criticizes the Democratic-led Congress for refusing to let him move on energy reform.

May 27th, 1975" 

From the James Miller Center

"Gerald Ford

May 27, 1975

Source National Archives

President Ford addresses the American people to discuss his efforts to pass an energy policy bill. He points to a lack of cooperation by Congress to enact any legislation to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil, conserve energy, and increase domestic production. The President and Congres eventually reach an agreement in December 1975 with the passage of the Omnibus Energy Bill." 

From the James Miller Center

President Ford, showing a lot of leadership in 1975, taking on energy policy and even energy independence, figuring out that the energy shortages of the early and mid 1970s were bad for the economy as a whole. Not just energy production, as well as our foreign policy having to rely on other countries that aren’t very dependable, to provide a huge superpower with energy. And that if America could produce more energy on our own, it would benefit both our economy as well as foreign policy. 

The Great Deflation, is how you could sum up the American economy in the 1970s. Part of that having to do with the fact that even though America has about the most natural resources in the world, perhaps only Russia, has the ability to produce more energy for their own country than America and yet we were dependent on other countries for our energy supply. Because we haven’t up until lately, the last few years, done a very good job of developing all of our energy industries. Oil, gas, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind. 

We produce all of these resources and have the ability to be leaders in all of these resources in the world and become energy independent. But haven’t done a very good job of moving these energy resources along.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative (2006) ‘Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention’

Source:Moog Rogue- the 1964 Republican National Convention, in hippie-leftist San Francisco. How times have changed.

Source:The FreeState

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue 

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party.

It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for the White House now.

C-SPAN: Book TV: 'Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States (1999)'

Source:C-SPAN- author Howard Zinn talking about his book.

Source:The FreeState

"Mr. Zinn talked about his book, A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, published by Harperperennial Library. He focused on his research for the book that spans American history from Christopher Columbus's arrival to an afterward on the Clinton presidency. He also stressed the importance of including the voices of blacks, women, American Indians, war resisters, and poor laborers of all nationalities into American history. After his prepared remarks he answered questions from the audience.

10/16/99" 

From The Ethan Was Here

"Howard Zinn (1922-2010) was a historian, playwright, and activist. He wrote the classic A People's History of the United States, "a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those ... whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories" (Library Journal). The book, which has sold more than two million copies, has been featured on The Sopranos and Simpsons, and in the film Good Will Hunting. In 2009, History aired The People Speak, an acclaimed documentary co-directed by Zinn, based on A People's History and a companion volume, Voices of a People's History of the United States.

Zinn grew up in Brooklyn in a working-class, immigrant household. At 18 he became a shipyard worker and then flew bomber missions during World War II. These experiences helped shape his opposition to war and passion for history. After attending college under the GI Bill and earning a Ph.D. in history from Columbia, he taught at Spelman, where he became active in the civil rights movement. After being fired by Spelman for his support for student protesters, Zinn became a professor of Political Science at Boston University, were he taught until his retirement in 1988.

Zinn was the author of many books, including an autobiography, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train, the play Marx in Soho, and Passionate Declarations. He received the Lannan Foundation Literary Award for Nonfiction and the Eugene V. Debs award for his writing and political activism.

Photographer Photo Credit Name: Robert Birnbaum." 

Source:Amazon- Howard Zinn's book.

From Amazon

This photo is from the same 1999 book event that author Howard Zinn did about his book 'The People's History of the United States" but the video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:C-SPAN- author Howard Zinn talking about his book.

This sounds like a very far, or new-leftist take on American history and writing about it from Howard Zinn. I like his line though about that he’s interested in history, because he’s interested in the present, meaning he doesn’t learn about history simply because he wants to know what went on before he was lets say around, or too young to understand what was going on, or things happening in his time, but he wasn’t aware of them. Which is the same reasons why I’m interested in history. Yes, to know what happened in the past, but to also know what worked and what didn’t back then and what we should do differently in the future.

As far as Howard Zinn's title for his book: "The People's History of the United States" He's arguing that a lot of the history that has been written in America, was not just written by non-Caucasians, but written about non-Caucasians by non-Caucasians. So I guess what Zinn was trying to do with his book is to say this is the important history that was left out of our history books. This is the history book for everyone else.

Howard Zinn was arguing that a lot of our American history has been written about the American military and that our heroes have been military people for the most part and that they are all let's say Caucasian men and most of them Anglo-Saxon at that. That a lot of our history has not been written about African-Americans, or American Indians. (To use as examples) But there has been a lot of history written about the civil rights movement, as there should be. And lot of the leaders that have been written about were African-Americans. The famous and most important leader and hero of that era being Dr. Martin Luther King.

Howard Zinn, makes a good point about big government in America that is has always been here. I mean you could start with slavery and all the African slaves that this country held. Or forcing Americans Indians off their land so Europeans could live there. 

The early 20th Century of Jim Crow that prevented African-Americans from being able to go to good schools and even hold good jobs. Unless they owned their own business’s, but good luck doing that if you can’t get a loan from your bank, because of your race and color.

Where I differ from Howard Zinn is his point that America shouldn’t criticize other countries, because we aren’t perfect ourselves. That we can’t get on other countries human rights records, because we don’t have a perfect human rights records ourselves. Well, if perfection was the standard for criticism, no one and no other country would be able to criticize anyone for anything. And we would have a hard time improving ourselves, because people would always be telling us how great we are, or not say anything at all as far as what they think of us. Of course America is not perfect, but we’re a lot better than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and a lot of other authoritarian states.