Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'A Conversation On The Minimum Wage (1980)'

Source:Liberty Pen- this is from Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose documentary series.

Source:FreeState Now

"A debate on whether the minimum wage hurts or helps the working class. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

I'm in favor of a living wage for multiple reasons, but I'll give you a practical one: if you want to low-income workers to work, instead of staying home and just collecting public assistance, you not only want a minimum wage, but you want low-income and low-skilled workers to not only be able to at least get a minimum wage, but have that wage higher than what they could get if they didn't work at all. 

For practical reasons, we should not only have a living wage, but have what Professor Milton Friedman called a negative income tax or have subsidize employment, where low-income, low-skilled people would not only work, but then get that income matched by the government up to a point, to encourage these folks to work and not stay at home, even if they have kids or other relatives to take care of.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- 'A Conversation On The Free Market'

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, talking about the so-called free market, in 1980.

Source:FreeState Now  

"From Milton's award-winning series, "Free To Choose. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

We need to get past the notions of free market and free enterprise, because those things simply do not exist in the developed world as much as Libertarians or economic Libertarians, like to use these terms. What economic Libertarians are talking about things that aren’t real. 

Any economic system that is subjected to taxes and regulations which exist everywhere in the developed world, as well as developing world are not part of any free market. What developed nations or developing nations that are developing fast like Brazil or Mexico or China have, as well as the developed world have are private markets and private enterprise. 

Private enterprise, is a private economic system run by individuals. But subjected to taxes and regulations by government. To perform government services that individuals consume.

And the difference between free enterprise and private enterprise or private markets and free markets and private enterprise and free enterprise, is that in a private enterprise system like in America or Canada (to use as examples) is that they have private enterprise economic system. Where a lot or most of the economy is in private hands owned by people, not government. Which is a private sector, but these private enterprises are subjected to taxes and regulations by government. 

If these countries had free markets and free enterprise, these private companies wouldn’t be subjected to taxes and regulations. Private companies, aren’t free to be bigoted towards their employees, or potential employees, or customers. Or free to pollute the air. They would be in a free market however.

In a true free enterprise system, (and not a made up one) private companies could essentially if not in complete actuality, do whatever they want under law with their companies. Because they wouldn’t have to pay any taxes, or have to deal with regulations, like monopoly laws, because there would essentially be no rules of the road. Because it would be a free market economic system. That is just not the economic system that we have in America, or anywhere else in the developed world. 

As much as Ayn Randian’s dream about in their fantasies for that to come about, if you truly believe in a free market and free enterprise, then you would be against things like corporate welfare. And other taxpayer-funded investments in the economy. And let the true free market decide the success’ and failures of private business’s. Why, because you don’t want government involvement in the economy and taking taxpayer money. But many so-called Conservatives, support corporate welfare and don’t even view it as welfare. So let's stop throwing around labels and terms as if they don’t have any real meaning. 

We obviously don’t have a socialist economic system at least in a pure form. And no developed country does. (And thank God for that!) But again no developed country in the world has an economic system where charity and economic assistance, is in complete private hands. Where taxes and regulations don’t exist. Which is a great thing, because if we did we wouldn’t have the national highway system (to use as an example) because that wouldn’t be very profitable for private companies.

MSNBC: ‘Lockup Extended Stay: Corcoran’

Source:MSNBC- Life at Corcoran State Prison in California. 

Source:FreeState Now

“Officers work to uncover gang-related contraband in the Corcoran prison yard.”

From MSNBC 

“Corcoran State Prison SATF medium” 

Source:Mark Krubsack- California Corcoran State Prison.

From Mark Krubsack

This is about the gladiator fights that went on at Corcoran State Prison in the California in the early and mid 1990s. That were run by Corcoran guards and set up by them. Where guards there would find inmates who didn’t like each other, or perhaps didn’t even know each other, to fight each other. And I believe put money on the fights that the inmates wouldn’t see a dime of.

What happened at Corcoran is just another example of prison slave labor and perhaps the prison industrial complex as a whole. Where inmates are exploited for profits by corporations who make money from taxpayers and the inmates.

I’ve seen the MSNBC Lockup documentary on Corcoran and I’ve seen other shows about Corcoran. And to me at least it looks like a fairly efficient prison. Where some of the worst and most violent and probably evil prison inmates and criminals in America, are serving their time at Corcoran. And lot of them are there for life and doing sentences close to that.

And yet what I’ve seen at least Corcoran looks like a fairly well run prison. Especially considering how tight their budget is and the lack of resources that California puts into Corcoran and how understaffed they are. And yet they generally do a pretty good job. But those gladiator fights did happen there.

Talking Points Memo: Joe Scarborough: 'FOX News, MSNBC, Exactly the Same'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Mike Brzezinski & Joe Scarborough.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Scarborough: Fox News, MSNBC 'Exactly The Same'" 

From Talking Points Memo

Joe Scarborough is right in the sense that MSNBC prime time and Fox News both represent political perspectives in America. They are both mouthpieces for different ideological movements in the country. 

Fox News is essentially the official voice for the right-wing in America and MSNBC prime time at least represents a part of the Left in America. I would argue the Far-Left at least with their prime time talk shows. Rather than both being networks for people to go to who are just looking for the news and what is going on in the country and around the world.

CNN represents the mushy middle, people who don’t know what they think and to a certain extent equal balance and they bring on people from both sides. But generally smart, sane people on both sides, people who don’t look like they are on medication from some shrink or need to be or perhaps even need to be committed. Unlike FNC and MSNBC that many times shows you what the nut houses on the Left and Right are thinking. And bring in escaped mental patients to show you those perspectives, or people who should be committed.

I mean if you are someone who is truly interested in news and people who just give you that and then brings in experts who are truly that and know what they are talking about and gives those perspectives based on old fashion things like facts and personal experience, things that might not be considered awesome by today’s young people and hyper-partisans, then CNN is still the best place for that. As well as the network news shows, as well as C-SPAN and perhaps Bloomberg.

Press Think: Dan Gillmor- 'Criticizing CNN: Goodbye to That'

Source:Press Think- writer Dan Gillmor.

Source:FreeState Now 

"As of today, I have retired from criticism of CNN for falling short of some sort of journalistic standard that news providers should maintain. That activity no longer makes sense. Let someone else receive the “ratings, you idiot” replies on Twitter. I’m done. I’m pretty sure you don’t care about this announcement, either. Which nicely illustrates why I’m done. 

The immediate cause of action is an amusing but also telling column by Jack Shafer of Reuters: In praise of tabloid TV, which explains why critics of CNN are absurd creatures. If you want coverage of Egypt instead of the Zimmerman trial there’s plenty of places to find it and besides audiences have always loved murder trials, so who are you to tell them they shouldn’t? 

Shafer uses something I wrote as his “ha ha, how clueless can you get?” text: this little 99-word Tumblr post. That was kind of annoying because as far as I can tell Shafer agrees with everything I wrote. CNN is making its priorities clear when it sticks with the Zimmerman trial while world events are breaking. Murder trials are like a TV series. Jeff Zucker, CNN’s new president, does want “everyone in his company to know what the priorities are: Mini-series in the center, world events off to the side.” Shafer writes: 

In today’s media environment, the media critic who insists that the cable networks follow Egypt and drop Zimmerman is like the nudging dining companion who wants to order both his meal and yours, lest you embarrass him by mistakenly ordering the burger and fries." 

From Press Think 

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[43] and conspiracy theories.[49] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[56]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[57] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][58] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[59] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[60] and in Latvia[61] and Lithuania[62] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"CNN is cutting 300 jobs amidst its ongoing struggle to retain viewers and compete against partisan rivals. Although once a well-respected organization that delivered hard news, the network has now taken on a “circus, tabloid, almost silly news format,” further adding to the channel’s problems, according to Georgetown University Journalism Professor Christopher Chambers. RT’s Ameera David spoke to the media veteran to get his take." 

Source:RT America- talking about CNN.

From Russia Today

Whatever happened to the Cable News Network, which if not was the standard at least when it came to cable news if not TV news in general was a standard that had this mentality of “just the facts” without bias’ or trying to report news without political slants. But reporting exactly what’s going on in the world and what is important that they viewers need to know about with intelligent professional analysts who explained what these things meant and not trying to tell us what to think.

And lately CNN hasn’t been the Cable News Network, but more like the News Rating Network, perhaps the OMG Report, reporting on everything awesome and tabloid. Or the Everything Awesome Network, trying to compete with E and perhaps what is now called True TV: “How can we make money and compete with FOX News and tabloid news networks”. 

The George Zimmerman trial is a perfect example of CNN's tabloid news drift, but they had the Jodi Arias trial before that. And they seem to have this idea that most Americans aren’t that interested in hard news anymore. And rather know what Kim Kardashian or George Zimmerman had for lunch today. Rather than the turmoil in Egypt the largest country in Arabia experimenting with democracy for the first time ever.

Is cable news a business? Of course it is, anything that’s done by companies are business’s. And of course CNN along with FNC, MSNBC, ABC News and CBS News have to be profitable in order to stay in business. But not at the expense of real journalism. And of course there’s a market for tabloid and other celebrity journalism. But those networks already exist and we already have a network that devotes its matinée programming to the American justice system. Actually, we have several networks like True TV, the Criminal Investigation Network, Investigation Discovery, and others.

These are the cable networks that should be covering tabloid and celebrity news , everything awesome or whatever the hell they want to call it. But not a network that advertises itself as a news network. That use to be the gold standard at least when it came to cable news, but now is looking to find itself and figure out who they want to be after losing viewers to FNC and MSNBC. 

Time Warner the parent company of CNN already has a cable network that advertises itself as knowing drama. What’s the TNT tagline? “We know drama” and that would be the place for CNN to broadcast the Zimmerman trial and other celebrity news stories. And leave CNN to be the home of hard news in America at least as it relates to cable TV. Where people go to find out what’s going in the world that’s important.

Eric Holmberg: 'Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier (1978)'

Source:Eric Holmberg- a young, idealistic leftist (let's say) questioning Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now

"Churchill once observed, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."  Today we have a new breed of liberal, people who want the government and corporations to spend whatever money necessary to keep them safe, employed, housed. fed and healthy...and in possession of a smart phone.  But if they knock up their girlfriend, they want to be able to dispose of the unwanted child as inexpensively (free would be good) as possible.  

Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, takes a moment and tries to get one young "99 percenter" to think through his presuppositions." 

From Eric Holmberg

If you around in America in the 1970s and survived it and aren't currently incarcerated and are living a healthy, productive, independent, life, I congratulate you. 

In late 1970s Ford Motor Company in order to save a lot of money and produce a lot of cheep cars and then sell them, produced the Ford Pinto. Which by today's standards, at least doesn't even qualify as an economy car, it was so badly and cheaply made. This car was so bad an unsafe to drive that the gas tank was in front of the license plat in the rear, meaning if you hit a Pinto in the rear, the car could literally explode. 

What this kid in the video was trying I guess to find out from Professor Friedman was does he believe that there should be some real regulations on the types of cars that are allowed to be built and sold in America, given the experiences with the Ford Pinto, Mercury Maverick, Chevrolet Chevette. With Professor Friedman essentially making the at what cost argument: How much are you willing to spend to make sure that every American car is as safe as possible? 

Camp Constitution: Dan Smoot Report- The United States Constitution

Source:Camp Constitution- the Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Dan Smoot Report.  The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement.  He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show.  He authored "The Invisible Government," one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations.  This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic." 

From Camp Constitution  

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers.[3] Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine.[4]

In 2000, Conservative activist Peter Gemma wrote a biographical sketch of Smoot in The New American. Gemma recounts that Smoot, among his other aberrant positions, challenged Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign for the nominee's embrace of NATO, which Smoot called a globalist organization of questionable value.[5]

In 1970, Smoot opposed the selection of a future U.S. President, George Herbert Walker Bush, as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate from Texas. He claimed that Bush's political philosophy was little different from the Democrats that he sought to oppose. Bush lost the Senate election that year to Lloyd M. Bentsen of Houston and McAllen. Oddly, eighteen years later, Bush would head the Republican presidential ticket, and Bentsen would be the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for vice president." 

From Wikipedia

The whole purpose of the United States Constitution, is to layout what are the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. As well as how the Federal Government interacts with state and local governments and what are the powers of the people as well. What freedom the people in the country have and what is our relationship with the government and what authority does government have to represent us in a civilize society.

This is how we establish rule of law and what makes us a Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Without a constitution, we wouldn’t have limited government and rule of law. Because government in theory anyway, would have unlimited power to either represent us, or rule over us. Which is why the Constitution is so critical so government knows what powers and responsibilities it has. But also to protect the people from unlimited government and authoritarian rule.

The Dan Smoot Report was done in 1962-63. Some time around then when the Kennedy Administration, had a broad economic agenda built around on building the safety net in America. Which was part of Jack Kennedy’s Great Frontier agenda. And part of that had to do with expanding affordable housing, medical insurance for senior, citizens, as well as the working poor and low-income Americans in general. As well as an across the board tax cut to deal with an economy that was growing slowly. And Federal aid to education.

What Dan Smoot and other Conservatives and people who would be called Conservatives Libertarians today, such as Senator Barry Goldwater, argue is that the U.S. Constitution, did not grant the Federal Government all of this power. They argued that the New Deal in the 1930s, was unconstitutional. The Federal Highway System of the 1950s and every new Federal social insurance program like the Great Society of the 1960s, are all unconstitutional. 

The values that Dan Smoot promoted is why I say Dan Smoot, is one of the first Tea Party leaders. But from the 1950s and 1960s, because they make similar arguments today and perhaps use Mr. Smoot as one of their inspirational leaders.

The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle- 'Is Objectivism a Cult?'

Source:The Objective Standard- Craig Biddle speaking on Ayn Rand's objectivism.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Craig Biddle addresses the question, "If an Objectivist is someone who accepts Ayn Rand's entire philosophy as true, how is Objectivism different from a cult?" In answering, Biddle discusses the essence of Objectivism, the nature of a cult, and the absurdity of positing that the former has anything to do with the latter. 

To explore more of these ideas visit:The Objective Standard." 

From The Objective Standard

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. 

Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that: "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, then somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives (who are actually Socialists) will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. 

Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.

Conservative New Media: ‘Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on How He Would Cut Government Spending’

Source:Conservative News Media- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) 2012 Republican Party nominee for President.

Source:FreeState Now 

“West Palm Beach Florida – Republican Presidential Candidate, Governor Mitt Romney talks about how he would cut government spending. Romney even talks about PBS’s Big Bird.

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Spoke in West Palm Beach Florida. John D. Villarreal of Conservative New Media was there to catch the action & bring it to you in 1080P HD!

Date: January 12, 2012

Location: Palm Beach County Convention Center, West Palm Beach, Florida” 

From John D. Villarreal 

If you want to be a strong leader, you have a vision of where you want to take the country and have a feel where you want to take the country and believe you are right. And can explain and back up why you believe you’re right. Then you should tell everyone else that as well. Especially people who are considering voting for you.

Any politician can say: “I’ll tell you my plans once I’m elected.” But voters deserve to know why they should vote for you instead. Blind-voting is not healthy for democracy. We should be educated about the people we consider for high office.

Voters want to know why they are voting for someone, what they believe in, what they are for, because they don’t have to vote for you, they can vote for your opponent instead.

This has been my major disappointment with President Obama who so far in a lot of areas has taken the approach of “let others work it out and I’ll come in and save the day when they fail”. If candidates believe so strongly in what they are proposing, they should have the, well guts (to keep this clean) and be able to explain why they are proposing what they are proposing.

Politicians shouldn’t tell voters, that is if they are on truth serum:”Ask me what I’m in favor of once I’m elected. And if you are in favor of it, I’ll tell you.”

The differences between governing and campaigning, is once you’re actually in office, you are held accountable for the decisions you make. Whereas when you’re campaigning, you can theoretically say anything and promise just about anything. Knowing you don’t have to live up to anything you said and promise. And will probably be able to explain why you’re changing course once you’re in office.

Any politician could say: “The situation has changed and we must change course to respond to the new, circumstances effectively.” Or in Rick Perry’s case: “I was drunk when I originally took those positions and now that I’m somewhat sober, I know I was wrong and feel the need to change those positions.”

Or in Michele Bachmann’s case: “I was off my medication when I took those positions.” Well, actually Michele is still off her medication, but hopefully she’ll be back on it when this Congress is over and head back home to the institution.

But what strong leaders do, especially executives, whether you agree with what they did or not, is lay out where they want to take the country. And once they are in office, stick with that. Put their agenda through or most of it.

Whether you like President George W. Bush or not and I voted against him twice and still celebrate both of those votes annually and if anything, but at least you knew what he believed in. He was just wrong most of the time and didn’t understand that.

With Mitt Romney depending on which Mitt is speaking, moderate Mitt, Neoconservative Mitt, Religious-Conservative Mitt or establishment Mitt, it is: “Ask me when I’m in office and then maybe I’ll tell you if I believe I need your support in the next election. ”

What the media does instead to try to find out Mitt’s positions is talk to people he’s talked to and analyze his policies that he puts up on his campaign site. And analyze them for themselves, because he can’t or won’t explain what his own policies would do. And America deserves better leadership than that.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Joseph Campbell: 'Walter Cronkite Wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Joseph Campbell, talking to Reason Magazine about CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite.

Source:FreeState Now

"It's safe to say that Walter Cronkite was not the most trusted man in America, and it's safe to say he was not even the most trusted man among newsmen," says American University Professor Joseph Campbell, author of "Getting it Wrong".

Campbell says the 1972 survey that gave Cronkite the title of "Most Trusted Man" compared Cronkite with prominent politicians of the time, not newscasters, and so he "inevitably came out on top." He says CBS then used the survey results to promote the network.

"It was a way to tout Walter Cronkite as a source to go to for election coverage among the three networks," says Campbell.

Campbell sat down with ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie to discuss Cronkite and other myths propelled by the media." 

From Reason Magazine 

Whether Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America or not, who knows. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted news anchor in America. Which was more important and easier to judge. He had this saying at the end of the CBS Evening News: “And that’s he way it is." And people believed that, we don’t have that today where a lot of our media is determined by which side of the aisle controls that organization.

The three national network newscasts, on NBC, ABC and CBS, as well as PBS, which people tend to forget or not even be aware of, still report the news based on what they report: “This is what we found and these are the facts in the story, as best we can determine." And I believe they still carry out the Cronkite legacy. (As I would call it that way) Where most of the rest of the news operations, except for C-SPAN and CNN as well, cover the news from a slant from either the right or left.

Opinion news mix in let's call them targeted facts, they’ll give you half the story if that and the rest of it will be commentary. And most of the people they interview share their view of the news and what that means and they’ll interview them to back up their perspective. And when they interview someone from the other side, they do it to contradict that person. With Walter Cronkite and with the PBS NewsHour, you get: “These are the facts” their reporters are reporters whose job it is to find out what’s going on in the country and around the World.

The network news divisions will interview analysts, a lot of times people without political slants who are there to explain what the facts mean. Which is much different from Fox News that’s in the business to give right-wingers a voice in the country and be the spokespeople for the Republican Party. Except for Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, where you get real reporting and real interviews.

And with MSNBC, especially in the prime time, but you can go back to 3PM with Martin Bashir, what you get from them is voices of the so-called progressive movement. They go after Republicans, as well as Democrats when they believe they aren’t what they call progressive enough.

One of the problems with today’s news and why someone like Walter Cronkite wouldn’t be nearly as relevant, if even successful, is that today news is not only mixed in with commentary, but with also entertainment.

People much rather know what Kim Kardashian wore at the last event she went to. Or about Paris Hilton’s latest run in with the law, and not how well the economy grew in the third quarter or April’s jobs numbers. So hard news is a lot harder to sell today with news organizations under the pressure to report everything, not just what’s important. 

Richard Mourdock: 'Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision'

Source:Daily Mail-  U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) who gives new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

Source:FreeState Now

“Politicians are often criticised for using canned responses and working in soundbites.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.”  

From the Daily Mail 

“Richard Mourdock Accidentally Releases Responses to ACA Supreme Court Decision” 

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) giving new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

From Talking Points Memo 

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate, just because of the numbers. 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators (as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana) Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. (Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you)

And Richard Mourdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6, because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent.

Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far-Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where it’s common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11, or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim, illegal immigrant, from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and centrist, and of sound mind.

Just to cover this video: let’s call him Dick Murdock, because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Mourdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s Ozzie and Harriet Theocratic Republican Party that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate, but someone who apparently believes he sees visions and can see the future before it happens.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us and give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say: “Look, we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country.” They could also say: “You should vote for this bill because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week. 

Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: 'Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace: two actual FNC journalists. 

Source:FreeState Now

"Chris Wallace Calls Interruption By Daily Caller Reporter 'Outrageous"

From Talking Points Memo 

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically. 

HBO Docs: The Weight of The Nation (2012)

Source:HBO Docs- From HBO's documentary Weight of The Nation. 

Source:FreeState Now  

"To win, we have to lose. The four-part HBO Documentary Films series, The Weight of The Nation explores the obesity epidemic in America." 

From HBO Docs

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban (which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids) it fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people what you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. 

But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens (I’m speaking basic English here) it goes away, because you eliminated it. So-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, in actuality) have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what, those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. 

If someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

People who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. 

We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford health care, won’t get it, at least at the emergency room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for. As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. 

But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make, to pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs.

Sidewinder 77: Milton Friedman- 'On Self-Interest and Profit Motive'

Source:Sidewinder 77- Chicago University Professor Milton Friedman, giving a lecture in 1978.

Source:FreeState Now 

"This clip is from the 15-part lecture series, "Milton Friedman Speaks" 

From Sidewinder 77

The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, it's assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. 

The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism, that government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc, and you can go down the line, that it becomes expensive, intrusive, and inefficient.  

But if you empower the people to not just make their own decisions, but the right decisions, educated people tend to become free people, which frees up a lot of resources for government to do what we actually need it to do as a free society, like protect and defend. Not try to un our lives for us.  

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- 'Saving American Liberty (1959)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on the Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959. 

Source:FreeState Now 

"Ayn Rand delivers a message that has never been more needed than today. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. 

We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that Cowboy Capitalism doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers, because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that we're on the books and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. 

Because of Cowboy Capitalism the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. 

You need to have a referee in the economy especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. 

The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. 

Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. 

What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. 

What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that. 

Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Self-Interest & Self-Ownership (1979)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Professor Friedman explains fundamental principles of self-ownership and self-interest to Phil Donahue. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I have a lot of respect for Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman, but we don't agree on everything. 

I believe under the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that government has a right and responsibility to look after the safety of its people. I believe that government has a right to regulate free enterprise. In this sense to protect the safety for its people. Like forcing them to make cars that are reasonably safe. And this is where Dr. Friedman and I disagree. But government doesn't have a role to tell auto companies what kind of cars to make. Except in how it relates to public safety.

If people want to buy something, there will be market for people to buy it. Government doesn't need to come in and try to force things on people. And shouldn't try to prevent people from doing things, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their activities. 

The power of American capitalism, is that if people have something to sell and then are able to market it and convince other people that they should buy what they are trying to sell, then they'll end up selling a lot of what they have. 

You don't need government to step in and force people to buy their products. The people know better than anyone what they should be buying, what they need and what they can afford. And if people have products to sell and convince a lot of people that what they have is worth buying. Then they'll be able to sell a lot of what they produce and make a very good profit off of that.

I make this case to supporters of single payer health insurance on a regular basis that if single payer health insurance is so great and that we need a health insurance monopoly in America, that they should have no problem convincing people of that. And that they should take their message to the people. 

What single payer supporters generally do is instead of trying to get the Federal Government to force single payer down the throats of the country giving us no choice in where we have to go for health insurance or how we pay for our health care. 

But as long as 3/5 people in America like their health insurance and don't want the Federal Government to come in and force them to switch health insurers, single payer supporters are going to have a very tough time at convincing people that they are right.

And then single payer supporters have to try to convince 3/5 Americans, that they are wrong about their own health insurance that they have selected for themselves. So what single payer supporters have to do, is take their message to the people instead state by state like what is going on in Vermont and convince Americans state by state, that they are right about health insurance and the rest of the country is wrong. 

This is the power of the market: if people want fast cars, then fast cars will be made. If they want to eat healthy, a lot of healthy food will be made. They want to stop drinking, the alcohol industry will lose a lot of money. 

Government shouldn't try to make these decisions for us by mandating them on us. If they want us to do something, provide some incentive instead of trying to take the freedom we have away to make those decisions for ourselves. 

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- 'A Constitutional Republic'

Source:Federal Expression- The Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now

"The Dan Smoot Report The true form of the US Government is a Republic, Not A Democracy. Not merely a symantic difference. The Founding Fathers despised democracy. They formed a Republic to guard against rule by majority. First we were told we were a democracy, then the republic was transformed into a democracy. Now we are witnessing the democracy collapse into dictatorship."

From Federal Expression 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society." 

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964."  

From Wikipedia 

It’s not a Constitutional Republic that should be goal for people who believe in individual freedom, but individual freedom that should be the goal. And then figuring out what type of governmental system is best that guarantees individual freedom for its people. 

A Constitutional Republic, doesn’t guarantee freedom, Egypt is a republic with a constitution. But even after the fall of the Mubarak Regime which was very authoritarian, they are still not a democracy yet but hopefully for the Egyptian people are moving in that direction.

And if individual freedom is a goal, then it's democracy that you want. And then you have to figure out what type of democracy you want. A liberal democracy, conservative democracy or a social democracy, or a majoritarian democracy and then you have to figure out exactly what’s the best type of government to guarantee your democracy. 

If democracy is what you want, then you’re a democrat in the sense you believe in democracy. Small d democrat, actually, both Democrats and Republicans are democrats. Republicans being Small d democrats. They both believe in democracy just have different views in what democracy is.

If you’re a Liberal such as myself, or a Conservative or Libertarian, you believe in liberal democracy. The ability for individuals to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. As long as they are not hurting any innocent people with their actions. Thats called individual liberty, or Freedom, means the same thing. 

If you’re a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist, you believe in social democracy. With a lot of individual liberty for the people when it comes to social freedom , for the most part, but where the state is highly involved in the economy.

With a social democracy, you get a big centralized government providing a lot of social services through a welfare state financed through high taxes. If you’re lets say a majoritarian for lack of a better word, that government has to be responsive to a majority of the people and what the majority wants is what the country gets and minority rights aren’t respected, then of course you want a majoritarian democracy. Where the majority rules over the minority and gets what they wants. And can make the minority do things, even if the minority doesn’t want to do these things.

After you figure out what type of democracy you want, you have to figure out what type of government is the best form to provide and guarantee this democracy. 

America as I see it is a liberal democracy and not just saying this because I’m a Liberal, but it's the case we are and have been a liberal democracy in the form of a Constitutional Federal Republic. Thats designed to guarantee our constitutional rights. Where Europe is made up of mostly social democracies. Mostly in the form of Constitutional Federal Republics, like in Germany, France and Italy. (To use as examples) And in Britain’s case, they are a social democracy with a monarchy. 

So if you’re a Liberal, Conservative, or a Libertarian, you probably prefer the American form of government. And if you’re a Socialist, you prefer the European form of government. And Liberals, Conservatives and libertarians debate Socialists in America all the time about what’s the best form of government, America, or Europe. And I’m in these debates on a regular basis as well. 

The New American: 'Dan Smoot Report- Basic Constitutional Government'

Source:Camp Constitution- Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report in the 1960s.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Dan Smoot Report.  The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement.  He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show.  He authored "The Invisible Government," one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations.  This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic."  

From Camp Constitution 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society."  

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine...  

From Wikipedia

If you’re a supporter of limited government, as well as individual freedom, that without limited government, individual freedom is threatened (as I am) then you believe in the U.S. Constitution. 

The reason why the U.S. Constitution is so important and what the theory is that the more power that government (and I mean any government at any level) has to regulate our lives and do more for us and take more of our money, the less freedom that we have to live our own lives and do these things for ourselves. It’s a big difference between America and Europe.

America in many ways is about individualism, the liberty for Americans to live their own lives without being harassed by government. And government taking a lot of their money away from them. Where 

Europe in a lot of ways is about collectivism: “That we are all in this together meaning life and that we need to put a lot of our resources together into one pot. For the betterment of all people. And government will take this money from people to make the country as good as possible. Through government services basically.” This is a simple way of putting it, but accurate. 

If you’re a what’s called Constitutional Conservative, or a Constitutional Constructionist, that you basically believe that government should only do what is laid out for it in the Constitution, that you take that text to be literal and only read the constitution in its literal sense, then of course a lot of what the Federal Government does today would be unconstitutional, as you see it.

For me, I see the Constitution as meaning that it’s based on limited government and individual freedom. And the main role of the Federal Government is to protect our individual freedom and not harass us. And not get involved in areas like medical care. Except to regulate it, or marriage at all, except to maybe how it relates to the tax code. Or marijuana, or alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc. Let the people live their own lives as they see fit. (Short of hurting innocent people with what they are doing) That free people have the right to live freely in a free society.

The government should only be doing what the people can’t for themselves, or not as well. That government should be there to regulate and protect. Not regulate people, but regulate how people interact with each other, which is different. 

Government should step  in when innocent people are being abused unfairly and protect and defend the country. Law Enforcement and a military, both strong, efficient and affordable enough to defend the country. Basically looking after the welfare of the people like a referee, but not try to control the people with the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

I wouldn’t eliminate a lot of the programs that the Federal Government currently operates. I would just reform a lot of them. Most of them in the social welfare area by making them independent of the Federal Government. And letting each state set up their own system in how these services would be operated in their state. That would have to meet basic Federal standards and also run independently of the state and local governments as well. 

If we had a Federal Government like this, then I believe we could answer a lot of questions and settle debates. About the role of the Federal Government and what it's supposed to do under the U.S. Constitution.