CSPAN: 'Minority Leader Pelosi Reaction to Supreme Court Health Care Ruling'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) talking about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

"Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) reacted to the Supreme Court decision that upheld the the health care law, the Affordable Care Act, saying the decision was a victory for the American people. She answered questions from reporters.." 

From CSPAN

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laying out the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today. 

The ACA was actually saved by Conservative Republican Chief Justice John Roberts. Going in, it looked like Justice Anthony Kennedy looked like the best shot at saving the ACA, because even though he's definitely a Conservative, he's not as right-wing and partisan as Justice Clarence Thomas. (To use as an example) 

But Chief Justice Roberts ruling that this isn't the law he would've written, but that the ACA is constitutional (according to him) because the individual mandate is a tax, even though it's not called a tax in the actual law that Congress passed in 2010. 

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act: Right Wingers React to the Roberts Court Decision to Uphold The ACA

Am I surprised that the US Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, of course I am but as I blogged on Monday. I predicted that the Supreme Court would uphold the ACA except for the Individual Mandate, on either a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. And that Chief Justice Roberts was more likely to vote in favor of this then Justice Kennedy. What I'm surprised by is that the whole law gets upheld not only 5-4, I predicted that it wasn't going to get upheld and if it. Would get upheld it would be 6-3 with both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy voting in favor of it, as it turns out Roberts being more Conservative then Kennedy votes in favor of the ACA. And votes in favor of the Individual Mandate and if you are a Conservative first and a Republican second and you look at things based on what's good for the country and for Conservatism in general. Then you should like this decision especially from the Chief Justice, who by the way wrote the Majority Report lets call it, that he and the four Liberals voted for. He voted for the Supreme Court and the US Constitution, by ruling that its not the job of the Supreme Court to save voters from their own politicians.

The Supreme Court didn't vote in favor of the ACA on policy, just the Constitutionality, Right and Left Wingers asked for the Supreme Court to decide on the Constitutionality. Of the ACA and made their arguments for and against and I believed the Right did a better job of making their case then the Left. Even though I disagreed with the Right and thats what they got from the Supreme Court and if Congress and the President whoever that is next year, doesn't like the ACA. They can vote to overturn it but that its not the role of the Supreme Court but of Congress, because they aren't Legislatures, thats why we have Representatives an\d Senators. So if you are a real Conservative you should like this decision at least based on that, they ruled in favor of the Constitutionality of the ACA and explained why and didn't write new law. Because thats not their job.

If you are just a Right Wing Partisan and of course you are on the Right or Far Right politically. And you feel the main job is to defend the Republican Party at every turn, until it hurts you politically and attack Democrats at every turn and not allow them to have a victory on anything, even when they clearly win. Like today at least on policy, which is basically the State of the Republican Party right now, then of course you hate this decision. The guy who was appointed by President George W. Bush and voted for Citizens United and the Patriot Act and other things, is now a Liberal and a Traitor, no facts to that argument. But why let facts and reason get in the way of an argument.

HBO: Ronald Reagan (2011)

Source:HBO- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) I believe his daughter Maureen is in the background there.

"Reagan examines the enigmatic career of one of the revered architects of the modern world—icon, screen star, and two-term president Ronald Reagan. This HBO documentary, which premiered this year on Reagan's 100th birthday, traces the 40th president's meteoric rise from B-movie actor to General Electric salesman to California Governor to the most powerful office in the world, examining how an impassioned anti-Communism fueled an unexpected but seismic political career, one whose reverberations still shape Americanlife. It also explores how a self-proclaimed group of modern-day Reagan acolytes have come to repackage his legacy, seeking to turn a deeply textured human being into an oversimplified marble icon for their own contemporary political purposes. Who is selling Ronald Reagan and to what end?" 

From Roco Films 

I just saw the Ronald Reagan documentary last night on HBO and I thought they did a pretty good job. Jumped through his California governorship, focused on the student protests at Berkley and his brief presidential run in 1968. Yes, Ron Reagan ran twice for president before being elected. I would've like to of seen more of Governor Reagan and see what type of Governor he was, even though I already have a pretty good idea from other films I've seen. I would've like to have seen how he worked with the Democratic legislature. How he defeated Governor Brown in 1966, how he got reelected in 1970.

I would also like to know how Governor Reagan closed the budget deficit, Welfare reform, all issues he focused on as Governor of California. As well as how he dealt with President Nixon in the 1970s. The fact he considered himself to be a Libertarian up until 1975 and then became more of a Classical Conservative like Barry Goldwater. His failed 1976 Presidential run against President Gerry Ford, what he did when out of office before he announced he was going to run for president in 1979. His involvement in 1978 California Proposition that would have allowed California employers to fire homosexuals because of their sexuality, that Reagan came out against, when he knew he was going to need the Religious-Right to be elected president in 1980.

There are so many aspects about Ron Reagan, that doing an hour and forty-five minute film about him, doesn't really do justice as far as telling the story of Ron Reagan the man. Someone because of his conservatism, couldn't win national office as a Republican today. The Religious-Right, as well as the Tea Party Nationalists wouldn't allowed that to happen. They would've treated him like Ron Paul. Accusing him of being a Liberal or Libertarian, which is one reason why he still remains one of our most popular former president's. Because except for maybe leftists, who still go out of their way to speak against him, he has broad support.

Conservatives love Reagan because he's against big government across the board, for the most part. George Will being an excellent example of that. Libertarians like him because he believed in low taxes and didn't want to tell Americans how to live their lives. Liberals such as myself and others respect him because he's a real Conservative and could work with Democrats. Centrists like him because he made government work and was practical. Reagan has support almost across the board. 

What you get with the HBO film, is a look at certain targeted aspects of his life, intended to appeal to a broad audience of people. Who don't follow politics and history very closely and feel the need to be entertained, which is one reason why this movie focused a lot on his Hollywood career and his two marriages, as well as his kids and Nancy. And there should be a movie about him, which is how LBJ and FDR have been covered where you get a big picture. 

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

Charles Krauthammer: 'On Wisconsin: Smaller Government Is Still Alive & Well'

Source:Real Clear Politics- Fox News political contributor and Washington Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer.

"It's clear that this was about the most energized electorate; there were no undecideds," FOX News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Wednesday. "If you look at the polls, everyone decided. Just about 86% decided a month ago. If you were undecided, you weren't paying attention. And it was extremely polarized; the issues were black and white."

"I'm not sure that you'd expect this, but you would expect that intensity and the divisions," Krauthammer said on the panel portion of FOX News' "Special Report" broadcast this evening. "But I think the lesson for the presidential campaign is for Romney, that he is extremely risk-averse by nature. There is nothing wrong with that but I think this is showing him that you don't have to be to win this election. You can try to win by going minimal, by running against Obama's stewardship on the bad economy and your credential as a businessman."

"But there's another option," Krauthammer explained. "And that is to do as well to add on to that the ideological element of it. This election showed, in Wisconsin, that kind spirit of 2010, the kind of if you like Constitutional conservative philosophy; smaller government is still alive and well and can be used in this election."

"And I think there are elements of the Ryan plan that Romney might want to highlight, either tax reform or entitlement reform, but something that is risky and bold and strong. I'm not sure he would do it but it would help him and Wisconsin is saying this is going to work. The electorate has grown up and they can take it," Mr. Krauthammer said." 

From Real Clear Politics

I think I agree with most of what Charles Krauthammer is saying here. But I take issue with Governor Scott Walker and the rest of the Wisconsin Republican Leadership as being Constitutional Conservatives. 

I'm sure there are a few Constitutional Conservatives in Wisconsin (or is it Wiscansin) but we're really talking about the Phyllis Schlafly, Christian-Right, populist, economic libertarian, but socially fundamentalist, wing of the Republican Party. 

Yes, the Populist-Christian-Right wants big government out of big business's and wealthy individuals wallets (as long as those wealthy individuals and businesses aren't Democrats) but they want big government in our homes. And to a certain extent in working people's wallets by taking workers right on whether they should join a labor union or not, away from them and having big government to that for them. 

The Wisconsin Republican Leadership, led by Governor Scott Walker, does not represent the Barry Goldwater Constitutional Conservative wing of the Republican Party. More like the Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Christian-Populist wing of the Republican Party. It's not big government that they oppose. They just don't want big government intruding on businesses and wealthy individuals that vote Republican. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Moore: 'The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher'

Source:Uncommon Knowledge- with Peter Robinson.

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

From the Hoover Institution

The situation that Margaret Thatcher inherited from Socialist Labor Party in Britain in 1979, is not much different from the situation that Ronald Reagan inherited from the Democratic Party in America economically in 1981. There were some differences politically, but both economies were in bad shape. High unemployment, low economic and job growth, both Thatcher and Reagan inheriting economic messes in 1979 and 81 respectively.

There were political differences, back in the 1970s. The UK Labor Party, was more of a Marxist Socialist Party, that believed in state ownership of the economy. At least to certain extents and there were British industries, that were owned by the U.K. Government. The U.S. Democratic Party, is made up of Liberal and Progressives and have Democratic Socialists. Progressive Democrats in the Party that believe in democratic socialism. Which is different from Marxism, but both parties have their big government supporters as it relates to economics and they were both in charge back then. But both countries were down and weren’t doing very well and were both looking for a change politically and both got it, with Thatcher and Reagan.

So in Britain, what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did and what the new Labor Party under Tony Blair continued in the late 1990s, but added their own touch to it, was bring more economic freedom to Britain. Privatized more British industries, cut taxes and cut spending and freed a lot of Brits to live their own lives. One thing I respect about the British Conservative Party, that unlike the Republican Party, is that they are a real Conservative Party. Not a Neoconservative Party. They truly believe in conserving individual freedom, not subtracting from it, or trying to tell people how to live their lives. The British Conservatives, didn’t bring in conservative economics, with authoritarian policies on Social Issues. They wanted to expand British freedom and give more Brits the ability to chart their own course in life, and not being dependent on the state for their lively hood.

That Thatcher Revolution, worked so well in Britain, that when Tony Blair was running and eventually elected Prime Minster in 1997 with the Labor Party, he did not run on Marxism. He didn’t try to convince Brits that capitalism doesn’t work and they need to go back to nationalizing British industries and return to the 1970s. What he did was to run on a different type of capitalism, that would expect Brits who were physically and mentally capable of working full-time, would be expected to be self-sufficient in life. And that even if you were unemployed and uneducated, that you would still be expected to work and be self-sufficient. And that the state will help you get the skills you need to be self-sufficient if you need it. Thats the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

House Republicans: House Republican Chairman Jeb Hensarling- 'The Kudlow Report'

Source:House Republicans- Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Republican, Texas) on The Kudlow Report on CNBC.

"House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling appeared on CNBC's The Kudlow Report to discuss our Plan for America's Job Creators." 

From the House Republicans

I saw an interview on the CNBC Kudlow Report, which is let's be honest, its not a report, its more like the Larry Kudlow Point of View, or POV with Larry Kudlow, would be a more accurate description of this show. I learn about as much or less from watching Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity. Which isn't saying anything. 

These shows are mostly commentary but I actually did hear some interesting on the Kudlow, Show (let's call it) where the guy guest-hosting this show was interviewing Jeb Henserling (Chairman of the House Republican Conference) who is basically the chief spokesperson for the House GOP Leadership. And Chairman Hensarling in this "interview" (more like a couple guys taking turns slapping each other on the back) that Congress at this point, has passed a lot less legislation than the previous Congress's at the same point in the Congress. Because the House and Senate haven't gotten together to agree on a lot of legislation, 

House Republicans and Senate Democrats are just very divided on almost everything. The Senate has had a hard time passing anything out of the Senate, because of how evenly divided the Senate is between Democrats and Republicans.

Chairman Hensarling said that its not about how much legislation that Congress passes but the quality of legislation that Congress passes. Which is an obvious statement but very true. Congress's tend to be judged by how much legislation they pass, instead of the quality of legislation it passes. Which is the wrong test. And here's why: me personally, I don't want to see Congress pass a lot of legislation. Especially anything that makes the Federal Government bigger or our taxes higher or takes away some of our freedom. 

I want Congress and the Federal Government as a whole to do the things that we need it to do, do the basic work that Congress needs to do. To keep Uncle Sam in business, which means at least passing appropriation bills, to avoid government shutdowns and defaults. And when there are problems in the country like with a weak economy, passing things that can help improve the economy, which is where Congress has overwhelmingly failed.

Congress can't fix the economy, nor can the rest of the Federal Government but it can pass legislation to encourage economic and job growth, which is what the country needs. Like with a long-term highway bill and further infrastructure investment, which would also be a boost for our construction and manufacturing industries who need the work. And we need the parts to do that work and for this to happen the House and Senate have to work together. Not trying to pass things that the other side won't approve.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel-Ann Coulter- War On Drugs Debate

Source:Liberty Pen- right-wing loudmouth Ann Coulter debating John Stossel on the so-called War On Drugs.

"After 40 years of futility, John Stossel wants to end the Drug War.  Ann Coulter does not.  A discussion of individual liberty ensues. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen

I hate to say this, because I see Ann Coulter as a sometimes crazy, but other times as a nasty, intolerant, person, who can barely stand the presence of being in the same room, as anyone who disagrees with her on anything (sort of like a fascist) but she actually makes a good point (for a change) about the War On Drugs. 

Don't get me wrong, I think she's not dead wrong, but definitely wrong about the War On Drugs. But arguing that we wouldn't need the War On Drugs, if we didn't have a welfare state (or as I call safety net) and forced to subsidized others bad decisions in life. My counterpoint is that we don't need the War On Drugs at all, because it's a complete failure and waste of hard-woking, taxpayer dollars, that the Ann Coulter's of the world say they care about. 

Anytime you punish someone for something that they do to themselves (which is what a big part of the War On Drugs is) you meaning the government becomes responsible for the welfare of that individual. Which costs a lot of money. It takes $50,000 dollars a year to house and take care of the average Federal prison inmate. So we end up being stuck with a safety net (as I prefer to call it) that we can't afford, on top of this so-called War On Drugs that we can't afford either. And that's just the taxpayer costs. 

Most people who are in prison for simple illegal drug usage or possession, gets out of prison while they're still fairly young, but but now they can't get themselves a decent job, because they have this felony convection on their records. Even though they were only convicted of illegal drug possession or usage and represent no actual threat to any innocent person and they're still addicted to illegal narcotics, because the only thing they got in prison was they're lost of freedom. And they become wards of the welfare state (or safety net) that taxpayers have to pay for. 

I mean, you can't be a fiscal conservative and be a fan of the War On Drugs, since the War On Drugs is a waste of tax dollars.