Liberty Pen: Barry Goldwater- 'To The Future From The Past (1964)'

Source:Liberty Pen- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona Mr. Conservative, running for President in 1964.

"Goldwater warns of future Social Security insolvency, inflation, central planning and deficit spending. (1964) Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

Senator Barry Goldwater as part of his 1964 presidential campaign warning us of what he saw was a dangerous experiment with socialism in America and that it was time for Americans to get back to their constitutional roots and limit government.

Washington Times: Opinion: Tom Schatz And Ron Lazof: "The Bloated Federal Government": How to Reform The Federal Government

SCHATZ AND LAZOF: Raising taxes won't fix bloated government - Washington Times

One of the problems that America has when it comes to fiscal policy and what the role of government should be. Is that Americans tend to want more government then they are willing to pay for, high taxes are unpopular in this country. Unlike in Europe but high government spending isn't especially if Americans don't have to pay for it in higher taxes. And the Federal Government unlike State Governments can just borrow money from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc. To pay for their government spending that Americans don't want to pay for themselves and if politicians. Force them to pay for the government spending in either higher taxes or in spending cuts, politicians risk. Losing what in too many cases they cherish most which is their jobs either in Congress or in the White House. Unlike one of the advantages that state governments have is that they don't control the Federal currency. So they can't take out a loan from another country and are forced to pay their bills with either new revenue. Or by cutting spending which forces the states to set priorities and actually have a budget and not decide to. Spend more just because some new crisis arises.

So if we really want to get our fiscal house and order so to speak where at the very least our debt and deficit. Is not growing faster then our economy and they are actually coming down and shrinking, we need to restore. Limited government in this country which is going to require politicians to actually lead and tell voters I can't. Do everything that you want me to do for you with either current revenue or spending levels, which means I. Need you to layout what you want me to do and I'll do what I can to do that for you or I'll tell you what I expect. Government to do based on the resources that we have based on what I believe the Federal Government should be doing. And it might not be as much government that you want from me but it will be based on what I believe the. Federal Government should be doing based on the resources that we have and if we are going to go further then. That I'm going to have to cut in areas where the Federal Government shouldn't have as big of a role and where. The people should be doing more for themselves.

Limited government is especially important especially in an era of limited resources with rising debt and deficits. And with sluggish economic growth which means politicians need to figure out exactly what the Federal Government. Should be doing and cut in areas where we shouldn't be spending as much money and reform in areas where. We need the government to play a role but need it to do a better job and that means cutting budgets, making government. Work better and requiring that all Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.

George F. Will: 'Modern Progressivism See Constitution’s Limits As, Well, Unconstitutional'

Source:East Bay Times- U.S Senate Democratic Leadership. From Left to Right (not necessarily ideologically) Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray.

"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them, but when evaluating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ideas for making the Senate more like the House of Representatives, consider the source. Reid is just a legislative mechanic trying to make Congress’ machinery efficiently responsive to his party’s progressivism. And proper progressives think the Constitution, understood as a charter of limited government, is unconstitutional.

They think the “living” Constitution gives government powers sufficient for whatever its ambitions are, enabling it to respond quickly to clamorous majorities. Hence the progressive campaign to substantially weaken the ability of senators to use filibusters to delay action.

Until 1917, it was generally impossible to stop extended Senate debates. Then — during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats’ first progressive president — the Senate adopted the cloture rule whereby debate could be ended by a two-thirds majority vote. In 1975, the requirement was lowered to three-fifths. If there is now another weakening of minority rights, particularly by a change brought about by breaking Senate rules, the Senate will resemble the House. There the majority controls the process and the disregarded minority can only hope to one day become the majority and repay disregard in kind.

Wilson was the first president to criticize the American founding, which he did because the Constitution bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms, especially the separation of powers. The point of progressivism, say its adherents, is to progress up from the Founders’ fetish with limiting government and restraining majorities. Hence progressives’ animus against the filibuster, which protects minority rights by allowing for the measurement of intensity as well as mere numbers." 

You can read the rest of George Will's column at the East Bay Times 

George Will's column is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Democrat, Nevada) attempt to reform the Senate to make it harder for the minority party (in this case the Republican Party) to block legislation by simply voting against cloture, instead of actually just filibustering legislation by holding the floor and speaking about whatever the bill on the floor is. Or blocking legislation by simply voting against the motion to proceed resolution, that also requires 60 votes for the Senate to just begin debate on any bill that needs 60 votes to break a filibuster. 

I agree with George Will that the Senate should not become like the House of Representatives and it should remain the upper chamber of Congress where minority rights are protected and where the Senate Minority Leader should remain a major player in as far as how legislation is written and passed. But right now the Senate is the Congressional graveyard where legislation goes to die. Where Senate Republicans led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, blocks any legislation that wasn't already passed by the Republican House, generally with just 43-47 votes out of a hundred. 

When the two parties and leaders in the Senate can't come together on any legislation, the Senate Majority Leader should be able to act on his own to bring legislation and executive nominees up for consideration. And the Senate minority party, led by the Minority Leader should be able to offer and indefinite amount of relevant amendments to the current legislation that's being offered, within a certain period of time. And after every amendment is offered and every member who wants to be heard on any bill and nominee that's being considered is given that opportunity, the Senate would then vote up or down. 

If the minority party, led by the Minority Leader, actually wants to hold the floor and filibuster the legislation, they could do that to block the legislation, until they give up the floor or are cut off with 60 votes or more for cloture. Instead of just voting against cloture, just to block legislation. If Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, they would want this same authority as well.  

Washington Times: Opinion: Ted Nugent: "Connecticut Killings a Result of Moral Decay": Why Its Not That Simple

NUGENT: Connecticut killings a result of moral decay - Washington Times

Every time I hear a so called Conservative and if you read this blog on a regular basis you know that I've questioned. And proudly and accurately so the Conservatism of these so called Conservatives especially in a party that had. The opportunity to nominate for President the most Conservative person running for President in Ron Paul. And he only won two Republican primaries, so when I hear so called Conservatives talk about how Conservative. They are because they believe in freedom and fiscal responsibility and that these are the things that will bring. America back to its greatness as if we are no longer great, even though more people still immigrate to this country. Every year more then any other country in the World and then on the other hand I hear some of these so called. Conservatives talk about our moral decay that we have too  much freedom in this country and we need to restrict. Our freedom to again restore America to its greatness, I get a little dizzy because what's the first rule in debating. And making an argument, don't contradict yourself, you argue for freedom on one hand and you argue. Against it on the other hand.

Do we have a problem when it comes to moral values in the country and too many families being broken due. To poverty and people making wrong choices about when to have kids and so fourth, of course we do just look. At the amount of people we have in prison in this country the largest prison population in the World but to. Say thats the only problem would be to ignore all of the other problems as well. We have too many Americans that have access to firearms in this country that have no legitimate business. To firearms in this country, the second amendment is for responsible adults in this country, not for mentally handicapped people and criminals. Who don't understand the consequences of what shootings like this can bring to society or don't have a big enough. Conscience to care enough to not shoot innocent children who just happen to be going to school that day. And until we address these issues of guns getting into the wrong hands and how inadequate our mental healthcare. Is in this country we are going to continue to have shootings like this.

We could have the best families and moral values possible but we'll never have a country that doesn't have mental disease. And criminal minds, so unless we can work on all of these issues in a comprehensive approach and get guns. Away from people who have no business possessing them and prevent irresponsible people from possessing. Guns and do a better job of treating our mentally disabled population, we are going to continue to have tragedies like this.

The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012: The Legacy of Robert Bork

Source: The Weekly Standard Robert H. Bork-

Source: The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012

I'm sure there were tough Supreme Court nomination debates pre-1987 before Robert Bork, but perhaps not before. Not only the TV age, but the TV cable age where there was twenty-four-hour coverage of Congress everyday with C-SPAN. Which is probably a reason why the Bork nomination was so controversial I guess and divisive. Where you had Democrats who couldn't stand the idea of a Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court and you had Republicans who were in love with Bob Bork and represented exactly what they wanted on the Supreme Court. Especially Neoconservative traditionalist Republicans who question whether or not the United States has a right to privacy and how they believe our freedom of speech shouldn't be as strong as it is and don't see things like indefinite detention and the Patriot Act and censorship of certain media as unconstitutional. And how he would've been the exact choice in who Neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush Administration and exactly who they would've wanted on the Supreme Court. Instead of who they got instead which was Anthony Kennedy who has more of a libertarian streak in him.

Another thing that separated Bob Bork from judicial nominations that came after him, was the fact that Judge Bork would almost go out-of-his-way to let the Senate know where he stands on the issues. And said things like the right to privacy doesn't exist and that Roe V. Wade that made abortion legal in the United States was unconstitutional. And decided improperly to use as examples and post-Bork judicial nominations have gone out-of-their-way not to let the Senate know where they stand on the issues. And what they would do instead is tell Senators what they know about cases that they are talking about, but would refuse to tell them what they think about them, just what they know about them. So we would see judicial nominees like John Roberts and Elena Kagan who are very familiar with the cases in front of them, but wouldn't give much of even a hint on where they stand on those cases for fear of being seen as too ideological.

I'm sure Bob Bork was a very fine man certainly a very honest man and you knew where he stood on the issues. But I'm sure as hell glad as a Liberal Democrat that he was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on a bipartisan vote because of where he stood on civil liberties and things like are Federal civil rights laws constitutional or not. Which I believe they clearly are and i'ts almost silly to debate I believe. And believe Judge Bork would've been dangerous to have up on the Supreme Court as we are now debating civil liberties and individual freedom in this country. The other thing I don't get about the Bork Supreme Court nomination is the President who appointed him. President Ronald Reagan a man that described his own politics as libertarian in 1975 and really never ran from that. Didn't give the Christian-Right and other big government Republicans much to admire him as far as policy when he became President. And maybe that is why he nominates Bob Bork, because he saw that as is way to pay back the Far-Right for their support.
Traditionalism-C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Slouching Towards Gomorrah With Robert Bork

Washington Times: Editorial: Democracy's Egyptian Peril: The Future of Democracy in Egypt

EDITORIAL: Democracy's Egyptian peril - Washington Times

For anyone who has this vision that Egypt will go from a military dictatorial authoritarian republic to a Liberal Democracy. Like we see in lets say in America overnight, is seeing things and is perhaps suffering from paranoia right now. Thats just not the type of country that Egypt is and has been, the best model for Egypt at least for anyone. Who believes in Democracy, is probably Turkey in the Middle East which is a Democracy that has very deep. Conservative religious beliefs where Turks combine their religious with their political beliefs but what Egypt. Does has its what's known as Liberal Democrats in America Egyptians who believe in ethnic and racial. As well as religious and gender tolerance that all Egyptians should be treated equally under law and people. Who believe in individual freedom, civil liberties and human rights which is progress in a country where these. Beliefs weren't very common in this country just two years ago and if they were made public, these people would. Risk being jailed by the Hosni Mubarak Regime.

Egypt right now is split between Liberal Democrats, I guess Islamist Democrats the Muslim Brotherhood. And the old Mubarak Regime what's called the Democratic Party over there but they aren't very Democratic. At best they would people who would be described as Neoconservatives in America that the state is paramount over the individual. And that freedom has to be limited in order to protect the state that individual freedom can be dangerous. Which basically sums up the current Republican Party in America, a large faction of it anyway. I'm of course as a Liberal Democrat myself in America, are with the Liberal Democrats in Egypt and I hope they'll. Emerge as the governing party over there and hopefully at least in the short term serve as the opposition party to the Islamist Democrats. But for Egyptian Liberals to do well in Egypt they, they have to convince Egyptians why Liberalism is way forward. For Egypt, what individual freedom means and so fourth.

Its not enough for Liberals to say that the Islamists don't go far enough to push Democracy in Egypt and that. They are wrong here and wrong there but they need an agenda of their own to counter what the Islamists are doing. And have an agenda thats built around individual freedom, equal treatment under law for all Egyptians. Why economic freedom should go along with social freedom and religious freedom, why combining religion. With state is dangerous and so fourth they need to communicate what Liberalism would mean for Egypt and why its the way forward. Which is what they haven't done yet.

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: Political Report: Is America Still a Center-Right Country?: Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy's America

Is America still a center-right country? AEI Political Report, December 2012 - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

Before I layout where I believe America is politically I just want to give a quote from Barry Goldwater, whose. Probably my favorite Conservative-Libertarian even though I'm more of a classical Liberal but Senator Goldwater. Once said I believe in the 1960s that he wanted Big Government out of his wallet and bedroom and it might of taken. The rest of the country forty years or so to get there themselves but thats basically where I believe America is. Bill Clinton to quote from the left once said that he believed in what's called an opportunity society where all Americans. Would have the opportunity to chart their own course in life and have the freedom to live their own lives, the second part. I'm paraphrasing but thats what an opportunity society is, Americans tend to believe in what's called the safety net. That should be there for people who can't take care of themselves but that all Americans who are physically and mentally. Capable should be expected to and should be working and taking care of themselves, that as then presidential. Candidate Bill Clinton said in 1992, that Welfare shouldn't be free that it should be an investment in people to. Empower them to be able to take care of themselves.

Whether America is center right or center left we are certainly a mainstream country politically, not Centrist exactly. But we don't go very far left or right and what may seem mainstream in other countries lets says Social Democracies. On the left or more Authoritarian States on the right, seems more like fringes to the majority of Americans in this country. And people who would like to see America move in those directions , tend to have a hard time winning statewide. Or nationally in America, Americans like their economic freedom, we don't like high taxes and regulations. We also like our social freedom and not be told by government or people further to us on the right or left. How we should live our own lives and what it means to be an American, Americans tend to not like to be told. How to live and told what to do by government and what it means to be an American, we like Big Government out. Of our wallets and bedrooms.

This is why I believe had President Kennedy not of been assassinated in 1963, 1964 might of had been the. Best Presidential election in American history because we would've had a real Liberal in Jack Kennedy. Versus a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater both people who believed that Big Government shouldn't be. In our bedrooms or wallets and that Americans should be free to live our own lives and would've represented. Where America has become and two people who also respected each other as well.