Ron Paul: 'How to Sell Liberty (1990)'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking about libertarianism in 1990.

“Dr. Ron Paul has been a three-time candidate for President of the United States; as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He served for many years as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, and is widely known for his libertarian views and his criticism of the federal government’s foreign, domestic, and monetary policies. He is the author of several books including The Case for Gold (1982), A Foreign Policy of Freedom (2007), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), and Liberty Defined (2011).

In this video Dr. Paul speaks to a crowd in San Francisco in 1990 at an International Society for Individual Liberty conference. Having run for office under the Libertarian Party’s banner two years prior, Dr. Paul shares his experience on how to sell libertarianism to make it palatable to both liberals and conservatives.”

From Libertarianism.Org 

What supposed to pass as Libertarians and libertarianism in 2012, are essentially right-wing Anarchists who call themselves voluntarists. People who don’t have a role for an organized, publicly financed government to do anything. People who are antigovernment, not anti-big government, but antigovernment all around. People who believe that everything that’s done in society should be done voluntarily with no rules for anything.

What’s supposed as a Libertarian and libertarianism today in 2012, is not what you get from Ron Paul when he was first elected to the U.S. House in 1976, ran for President of the Libertarian Party in 1988, got elected to the House again in 1996, ran for President in 2007-08, and again in 2011-12.

Ron Paul to me is the face of the American Libertarian movement. Perhaps not the father, but you are talking about someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, just as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing. Which is his role for government, which is to protect the innocent from people who hurt them. But not to run anyone’s lives for them, or assist anyone with public assistance when people fall on hard times. Just to protect the people from predators both foreign and domestic.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Libertarian Party: ‘The Libertarian Party’s 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve’

Source:Libertarian Party- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President.

“The Libertarian Party’s 41 year campaign to abolish the Federal Reserve”

From the Libertarian Party 

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party.

The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today because there isn’t a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren’t purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right and Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare, and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left (Far-Left, really) a combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don’t seem to believe in it.

The Democratic Party also has the whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I’m not a Libertarian even though I’m completely against big government myself, but whether you’re a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don’t have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party.

The Libertarian Party believes in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don’t just speak about aspects of it that they like as they’re trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don’t like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

ABC Sports: Thomas Hearns vs. Marvin Hagler- 1985 World Middleweight Championship

Source:ABC Sports- Tommy Hearns vs Marv Hagler in 1985.

"Marvin Hagler VS Tommy Hearns (full fight)" 

From Qwer Asdf

Hearns-Hagler for the World Middleweight Championship in 1985, might be the best, great, short fight of all-time. But the reason it was a great short fight is because Tommy Hearns made two tactical mistakes: 

One, perhaps not his fault which was to break his hand hitting the top of Marvin Hagler's rock-solid head. Which obviously affected Hearns performance the rest of the fight. But the other mistake which was something he could have avoided was to get into a slugfest with Hagler a man who was a devastating body puncher who would just wear you out. Not that different from a Joe Frazier, but who avoided punches very well and could take a lot of great shots. Not that he had to very often. 

Hearns, being 6'1 and very quick with a great jab, should've worked the outside and pounded Hagler when he had him hurt. But you don't go toe-to-toe with a bulldog, when all you need is a leash to keep him under control. But Hearns landed a lot of great shots, but took too much punishment and breaking his hand essentially ended the fight for him. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Murray Boochkin & Karl Hess: Anarchism in America (1983)

Source:IMDB- Anarchists and Libertarians: what's the modern difference?

"A colorful and provocative survey of anarchism in America, the film attempts to dispel popular misconceptions and trace the historical development of the movement. The film explores the movement both as a native American philosophy stemming from 19th century American traditions of individualism, and as a foreign ideology brought to America by immigrants. The film features rare archival footage and interviews with significant personalities in anarchist history including Murray Boochkin and Karl Hess, and also live performance footage of the Dead Kennedys."  

From IMDB 

"In 1979 Clark won the Libertarian Party presidential nomination at the party's convention in Los Angeles, California. He published a book on his programs, A New Beginning, with an introduction by Eugene McCarthy. During the campaign, Clark positioned himself as a peace candidate and emphasized both large budget and tax cuts, as well as outreach to liberals and progressives unhappy with the resumption of Selective Service registration and the arms race with the Soviet Union.[6] Clark was endorsed by the Peoria Journal Star of Peoria, Illinois.[7]

When asked in a television interview to summarize libertarianism, Clark used the phrase "low-tax liberalism," causing some consternation among traditional libertarian theorists, most notably Murray Rothbard.[8][9] Clark's running to the center marked the start of a split within the Libertarian Party between a moderate faction led by Ed Crane and a radical faction led by Rothbard[10] that eventually came to a head in 1983, with the moderate faction walking out of the party convention after the nomination for the 1984 presidential race went to David Bergland.[11]

Ed Clark's running mate in 1980 was David H. Koch of Koch Industries, who pledged part of his personal fortune to the campaign for the vice-presidential nomination, enabling the Clark/Koch ticket to largely self-fund and run national television advertising.

Clark received 921,128 votes (1.1% of the total nationwide);[12] the highest number and percentage of popular votes a Libertarian Party candidate had ever received in a presidential race up to that point. His strongest support was in Alaska, where he came in third place with 11.7% of the vote, finishing ahead of independent candidate John Anderson and receiving almost half as many votes as Jimmy Carter.[13] Clark's record for most votes won by a Libertarian presidential candidate stood for 32 years until it was broken by Gary Johnson in 2012. His Libertarian vote percentage of 1.1% ranks 3rd behind Johnson's 3.3% showing in 2016 and Jo Jorgensen's 1.2% performance in 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

This photo is from the 1980 Libertarian Party Convention with a feature about Ed Clark who was their nominee for President. But that video is not currently available anywhere.

Source:Libertarian Party- 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark (Libertarian, California)

I find it interesting that a self-described leftist who has both socialist and anarchist leanings would be at a Libertarian Party conference. But that is exactly what you have in this video with Murray Bookchin speaking at a 1980 Libertarian Party conference. But I guess if you’re a true Libertarian you believe in free thought, free expression and free ideas. Even if they don’t completely agree with your own ideas and views. 

Murray Bookchin, sounds to me like Noam Chomsky ideologically. Professor Chomsky is a self-described Libertarian Socialist. Which almost sounds like an Oxymoron, but Chomsky takes the libertarian ideas when it comes to social issues and social policy. And is a Democratic Socialist when it comes to economic policy and foreign policy.

The New-Left in America might be a lot further along had they went the Noam Chomsky route when it came to their ideas. Instead of being about big government all the time and everywhere. And today even now questioning whether free speech is a good thing, because it also allows for the opposition to speak freely. With their whole political correctness movement. 

What American Socialists could say instead said is: “That capitalism and private enterprise are risky things. So you need to limit for-profit enterprises and tightly regulate them. While having a big government there to take care of people when they fall through the cracks of the capitalist private enterprise system. But that personal freedom should be vast and for everyone.” Instead of using a big government to try to protect people from themselves.

Had the New-Left in America taken the Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and even Bernie Sanders route when it came to both economic and social policy, as well as foreign policy, instead of always being about a big state and that individual freedom is always dangerous whether its economic, or personal and that freedom of choice gives people the freedom to make mistakes that government has to pay for, then they would find that they have a lot in common with the Libertarian Party, libertarian movement as a whole, classical Conservatives and even Center-Right Liberals who are the real Liberals. And they would have a lot more support politically in America. Because they wouldn’t sound like Marxist Communists fascist statists.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand (1959)

Source:Open Culture- pre-CBS News 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace had his own interview show on ABC, in the 1950s.

“Yesterday we featured Alain de Botton’s television broadcast on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Today, we feature another, earlier television broadcast on a much more recently active philosopher: Mike Wallace’s 1959 interview of Ayn Rand, writer and founder of the school of thought known as Objectivism. But should we really call Rand, who achieved most of her fame with novels like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, a philosopher? Most of us come to know her through her fiction, and many of us form our opinions of her based on the divisive, capitalism-loving, religion-hating public persona she carefully crafted. Just as Nietzsche had his ideas about how individual human beings could realize their potential by enduring hardship, Rand has hers, all to do with using applied reason to pursue one’s own interests.

Mainstream, CBS-watching America got quite an introduction to this and other tenets of Objectivism from this installment in what Mike Wallace calls a “gallery of colorful people.” The interviewer, in the allotted half-hour, probes as many Randian principles as possible, especially those against altruism and self-sacrifice. “What’s wrong with loving your fellow man?” Wallace asks, and Rand responds with arguments the likes of which viewers may never have heard before: “When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.” Does Ayn Rand still offer the bracing cure for a rudderless, mealy-mouthed America which has forgotten what’s what? Or does her philosophy ultimately turn out to be too simple — too simple to engage with, and too simple to improve our society? The debate continues today, with no sign of resolution.” 

From Open Culture 

“In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when “the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear.”

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati’s plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.” 

Source:Open Culture- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand on The Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959.

From Truth Tube  

This photo is from the Mike Wallace Interview with Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand in 1959. But that video is apparently not available online right now.

Source:Truth Tube- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview in 1959.

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard, because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians, including President’s, and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview.

Mike Wallace could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

Mike Wallace interviewed columnists and other writers like authors people who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things, professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known.

So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the let’s say Social Democrat in doing this interview: self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate.

Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, Wallace instead questioned  Rand’s philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ayn Rand (1967)

Source:Dangerous Minds- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson, in 1967.

“Many videotapes of Johnny Carson’s 1960s episodes were lost in the fire of NBC’s archives, but at least part of Ayn Rand’s first appearance on The Tonight Show (she was on three times over the years, clearly Carson was a fan) has survived and has been posted on YouTube.

Apparently, Carson snubbed his other guests that evening and kept Rand on for the entire 90 minute show. Topics include raising children, religion, the military draft and the Vietnam War.” 

From Dangerous Minds

“Ayn Rand’s First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967” 

Source:Men's Business Association- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson, in 1967.

From Men's Business Journal

Johnny Carson, was accustomed to entertaining people, doing skit comedy, standup comedy and interviewing other entertainers. And I’m not saying that Johnny Carson was an ignorant or uneducated man, the opposite was true and he was interested in politics and current affairs. And made fun of people in this business as part of his act. But he was accustomed to interviewing entertainers, not intellectuals like Ayn Rand. Johnny, was accustomed to interviewing people who entertained others for a living, rather than interviewing people who get paid to educate people about philosophy and history.

So when Johnny interviewed Ayn Rand in 1967 on his show, it was a step up for him and probably something he had to do a serious amount of prep work to prepare for. Like reading Ayn Rand’s books and reading articles about her, checking out any news footage about her as well.

Ayn Rand, wasn’t someone who was very commonly known in Hollywood (To put it mildly) The intellectuals they were familiar with, already held office and were politicians. Rather than people on the outside looking in, perhaps trying to build a counter-movement, which is what Ayn Rand was doing to a certain extent.

So when someone like a Johnny Carson is interviewing someone who some Libertarians perhaps consider the mother of the Libertarian movement in America, instead of interviewing the latest pop or rock star, or hit celebrity and talking about that person’s latest divorce or bout with the law, Johnny was giving his audience and different flavor and something very different to think about on his show. And he was very good at that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman- On British TV

Source:Alan Meires- the world heavyweight boxing division at it's best.

"Frazier, Ali and Foreman On British TV Show Very Funny. I found this buy luck the British BBC  was broadcasting this as a tribute to the late Great Jo Fraziers Death. 18 October 1989."

From Alan Meires

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. 

Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. 

Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat him. 

George beat Smokin Joe twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

HBO Sports: George Foreman vs Michael Moorer- World Heavyweight Championship (1994)

 

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship, in 1994.

"Michael Moorer defends the heavyweight title against George Foreman. Entire HBO program from beginning to end. Hosted by Jim Lampley, Gil Clancy, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1994." 

From Sterling Wainscott 

This a fight that Mike Moorer would like to have back. This fight reminds me a little of George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1974 where Muhammad, waited for Big George, to punch himself out while landing enough punches in the fight to stay ahead. But essentially let Foreman land his punches thinking he wasn't built to last and would punch himself out. And that is when Ali went to work on him and knocked him down for the ten count. 

This was a little different where Big George, lost almost all the rounds if not all of them and did enough to buy himself time to capitalize on a mistake from Moorer, which is where he hit him with a 1-2 and knocked him out.

Big George, is 45 at this point and in his eighth year of his famous comeback looking to win back the world championship. Weighing in at 255-260 pounds and slow, but still having devastating power and the ability to take great punches. 

Mike Mooere, 26 at this point and should have been in this prime and was prepared at least physically to hold on the title for a long time. He beat Evander Holyfield for the championship in 1993. He was 6'2, 215-220 pounds, real quick and real powerful. But perhaps a bit overconfident lacking the work-ethic needed to stay as a world champion. Not that different from Riddick Bowe, or Buster Douglas.

So going into this fight this almost looked like a mismatch. People thinking that Moorer, would pound Foreman the whole fight and be able to avoid Foreman's big jab and win most if not all the rounds. Either wear Foreman out, or win with a landslide decision. 

The cliche always has a punchers chance, was never more correct than in this fight. George Foreman, in every fight he ever fought was always 1-2 punches away from winning. Because he could knock anyone out in 1-2 punches. Or nail you so hard with one punch and then pound you with several big blows after that would take you out. 

Big George, caught Moorer with one of his huge jabs and then decked him with a punch that Moorer didn't see. And that is how he won the World Heavyweight Championship. Where he trailed the whole fight.

You can also see this post at The Daily Review on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

HBO Sports: Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes- World Heavyweight Championship (1982)

Source:HBO Sports- Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, for the WHC, in 1982.

"Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney (High Quality) 11th of June, 1982...............Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada WBC Heavyweight World Championship" 

Source:Katis 

"They met thirty-five years ago under the stars in that neon desert of illusion, Las Vegas, drawn together by hate, cynicism, greed. Mere sports seemed like an afterthought that night. On June 11, 1982, hardscrabble Larry Holmes, whose magnificent bitterness had fueled his rise to the heavyweight championship, met affable Gerry Cooney, young, powerful, Irish, unproven, and feverishly revered. With racism looming over the promotion from the day it first kicked off, Holmes-Cooney became a national Rorschach test with ugly interpretations. More than 30,000 spectators gathered to see Holmes and Cooney wage war, with millions more tuning in on closed-circuit, radio, and pay-per-view. It was the biggest fight of its time and, perhaps, a brief glimpse into the dark heart of America. For Cooney, who suggested something out of Clifford Odets—“Like a bullet! All future and no past”— during the Studio 54 heyday, there would be precious few tomorrows in boxing after what happened at Caesars Palace. For Holmes, whose nasty edge never dulled as the years went gray, there were more riches and glories to come…along with enough bleak memories to last a wakeful life. The following is a media collage of the events surrounding one of the most cheerless fights in history."  

Source:This Brutal Glory- Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, for the WHC in 1982.

From The Brutal Glory

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. 

Cooney didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. He reminds me a little to George Wepner and if he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. 

This was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. 

Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Morton Downey Show: Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Buzz Feed News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Morton Downey Show, in 1988.

“Ron Paul has never been considered a conventional politician, but his 1988 appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. Show is bizarre even by his standards. Paul took, on among others, Guardian Angel Lisa Sliwa in 15 minute showdown that featured Paul defending the traditional Libertarian policy he still defends today.”

From Buzz Feed 

“Hilarious raucus TV appearance with a chain-smoking host, eccentric guests and a wild audience”

Source:Andy Warhol- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Morton Downey Show, in 1988.

From Andy Warhol 

Morton Downey Jr. who died from the overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs, here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well, actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well, that is Washington speak for: “Drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization.” 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason: Javier Sicilia- 'The Caravan For Peace Calls For an End to The Drug War'

Source:Reason Magazine- covering The Caravan For Peace.

"On August 12, where the wall between Mexico and the U.S. meets the Pacific Ocean, acclaimed Mexican poet Javier Sicilia and busloads of people who are fed up with the drug war launched the Caravan for Peace. Over the next several weeks, the Caravan will travel to 25 different U.S. cities with the goal of starting a serious national dialogue about the failure of drug prohibition.

Javier Sicilia, whose son was murdered by drug traffickers in 2011, described the drug war this way:

"This war's failure is devastating: the 23 million American drug consumers are far from diminishing but increasing instead; in the past 5 years, Mexico has accumulated almost 70 thousand dead, more than 20 thousand missing people, more than 250 thousand have been displaced, along with hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and these figures keep rising. The American gun manufacturers arm the organized crime through illegal trade, while the Mérida Initiative legally arms the Mexican army, fostering war. The American jails imprison millions of human beings because of drug consumption. The immigrants are criminalized on this side of the border and extorted or made to disappear on the other side; the temptation to militarize using the police regime emerges on both sides, while setting a deep crisis for democracy and undermining the greatness of open societies." 

From Reason Magazine

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors. First, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. 

We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well, the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well, thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if it's abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you: don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. 

But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. 

And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save people who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.

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.

Nate Cox: ‘Ron Paul on the Principles of the Libertarian Party (1988)’

Source:Nate Cox- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS.

“Ron Paul explains the principles of the Libertarian Party. This footage was taken in the 80’s when he was running for President under the Libertarian Ticket.”

From Nate Cox

When I was growing up at least in the 1980s and early 90s, a Libertarian was essentially someone who believed in the non-aggression principal. Which means you don’t hurt me and I won’t hurt you and as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person, people should be as free as birds to live their own lives. And where government comes in is to protect innocent people from predators, but not to run people’s lives for them.

I believe that’s changing today where you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are essentially right-wing Anarchists who don’t seem to have any role for government whatsoever.

Representative Ron Paul at least as long as I’ve been falling him since he returned to the House of Representatives in 1997 as a Republican, seems to be in the first school of Libertarians. And does believe in at least some government, but not big enough to run our lives for us.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason: Lucy Steigerwald- 'What We Saw at The Solidarity Concert for Pussy Riot'

Source:Reason Magazine- Lucy Steigerwald interviewing a Pussy,  LOL!

"Amnesty International called Russian punk feminist collective Pussy Riot "prisoners of conscience," after a February 21 anti-Putin protest landed three members of the band on trial for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." The plight of Pussy Riot has provoked international attention — and pressure for lenience — as the women face three to seven years in prison. On August 10, Reason TV headed down to the Solidarity Concert for Pussy Riot, right across from the Russian embassy."

From Reason Magazine

Wow! I thought Christian-Nationalism was a problem in America, especially when it’s involved in politics. But didn’t realize how big of an issue it is Russia as well. That their Federal Government is trying to clamp down on pornography and perhaps other forms of adult entertainment. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that I don’t live in Russia, or aren’t of Russian ethnicity. You hear stories about Russia as it relates to the Putin Administration clamping down on speech as it relates to the press.

Because Russia does technically have free press over there, with private media and so-forth and the Federal Government gets involved when one of their news networks, or publications report a story that’s critical of the Putin Administration. Which is bad enough, but to take it to the next level and it interfere with how people live their own lives and what they do in their own homes, is beyond extreme. Its big government gone wild and is something that the Christian-Right would love to see in America.

I can see one of these groups holding rallies with some of their famous religious leaders in defense of President Vladimir Putin and what he’s doing to crack down on immoral behavior as they see it.

I can see it now, Christian-Conservatives holding rallies in favor or what the Putin Administration in Russia is doing as far as it regulates its own people. They would call it something like: “Defending God in the name of morality and decency by trying to eliminate pornography in the Russian Federation.” They would be defending a country that just twenty years ago was a communist republic, a country they use to protest against, especially as it relates to religious freedom.

But now the Christian-Right would be coming out in a favor of a country that still cracks down on freedom, but in a different way: people’s ability to express themselves and be able to live their own lives and control their own bodies. And perhaps see Christian-Conservatives holding rallies against people speaking out in favor of free expression.

Which is how pornography has been ruled constitutionally protected under the First Amendment in the United States. I could see rallies organized by Christian-Conservatives that would one defend the what President Putin is doing in Russia as it relates to pornography and rallies speaking out against people who are speaking out in favor of people’s ability to express themselves sexually. And calling these people immoral and people who should be in prison for what they do in private and what they are speaking out in favor of. Which is a big part of what Christian-Nationalism is in America: restricting freedom to protect what they see as national security and morality. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller Interviewing Gavin Polone- ‘Hollywood Hypocrites, Bad Films & The Future of The Industry’

Source:Reason Magazine- interviewing Hollywood writer and producer Gavin Polone.

“In the entertainment industry, you see a lot of very preachy people, who are very ‘Save the Bay,'” says Gavin Polone, a Hollywood producer, former talent agent and columnist for New York Magazine’s Vulture.com. “And then, you know, they’re getting on a private plane.”

Polone, who’s produced such memorable projects as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Panic Room, Zombieland, and Gilmore Girls, has a reputation for speaking his mind, even when what he’s saying isn’t popular. He sat down to speak with ReasonTV’s Zach Weissmueller about the irritating and hypocritical preachiness of celebrities, why film subsidies are killing the entertainment industry and hurting the economy, the urgent need for the studios to adapt to new technology more quickly, and why he describes his politics as “more libertarian than anything else.”

About 9.30 minutes. Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Sharif Matar, Alex Manning and Tracy Oppenheimer. Edited by Weissmueller.”

From Reason Magazine 

Hollywood is stereotyped as very far to the left compared with the rest of the country. And I’m not going to describe them as liberal, because they are not. Liberal on social issues, but not liberal in the classical sense, which is where my politics is.

A lot of Hollywood people talk like leftists, but live like liberal capitalists who love their wealth and freedom and would die in order to protect it. They will talk about saving the day and calling out the latest right-winger that they claim they don’t like during the day, while as Gavin Polone said flying on their private jets at night and living the Hollywood hipster lifestyle and going to one wealthy person party at night.

And as Gavin Polone put it and I would put it this way, so-called Hollywood leftists (who are just Classical Liberals in actuality) are always calling for more government and social programs, or restrictions on free speech and perhaps other personal activities, while they’re going out of their way to not pay taxes and defending their rights to free speech and personal freedom.

Some of the wealthiest people in the world, are actually people who talk like leftists and supposed leftists. Actresses Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda are both worth over 100 million dollars. Where did they get all of that money if they hate capitalism and economic freedom so much? Not to pick on these two great actresses who I love as actresses and entertainers more broadly, but they are also acting when they talk like leftists and support leftist politicians and candidates. And talking like leftists and living like liberal capitalists is very common in Hollywood, it’s not just Sarandon and Fonda. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.