VOA News: Jerome Socolovsky- ‘Libyan Uprising Boosts Morale in Mideast’

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5833

Source:VOA News– U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Voice of America (VOA) is an American international broadcaster. It is the largest[2] and oldest U.S. funded international broadcaster.[3][4] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 47 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe. It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its people.

VOA was established in 1942,[5] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[6] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[7] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. In 2016, VOA broadcast an estimated 1,800 hours of radio and TV programming each week to approximately 236.6 million people worldwide with about 1,050 employees and a taxpayer-funded annual budget of US$218.5 million.”

From Wikipedia 

“The apparent victory by rebels in Libya is sending shockwaves throughout the Middle East. VOA’s Jerome Socolovsky reports that an uprising that appeared to be lost is boosting the morale of protesters facing other Arab governments that have responded with severe repression.”

From VOA News

I’m not in favor of the United States putting troops on the ground in Libya, or Syria and would like to see us pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq as well. As well as in developed nations like Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea as well.

Even though I was in favor of our involvement in the NATO no fly zone in Libya under the War Powers Act, the way the Obama Administration has interpreted the WPA since, by basically saying that they don’t need the approval of Congress to continue the involvement there, even though it says in the WPA that the President must get approval from Congress within ninety days after committing troops in other nations.

I’m glad the Libyan no fly zone has worked, but I’m not happy with Obama Administration’s approach to the WPA since. And because of this I wouldn’t be in favor of getting involved in a NATO no fly zone over Syria either. But that doesn’t mean America should sit still and watch innocent Syrians be murdered just because they are fighting for freedom either.

What NATO, the European Union, the Arab League perhaps the United Nations can do and where Egypt and Turkey could play a very valuable role here, both large countries with well equipped and have large military’s, is to defend the Syrian people on the ground with a force coming from the air.

With Turkey being a part of NATO and bordering Syria as well and with Egypt being near by, is take the lead role in forming a no fly zone over Syria, or committing ground troops in Syria with the Syrian opposition’s permission. Not to take out the Assad Regime exactly, just to prevent and to stop the Assad security forces from murdering its own people.

And America can help with the EU, UN and AL with economic sanctions, keep money and resources from going into the Assad Regime. And supply money and resources military and otherwise the Syrian opposition as they fight for their freedom. And hopefully an operation like that would drive the Assad Regime out of power, or at least drive President Bashar Assad to step down from a power and to allow for a smooth transition to form the next government in Syria.

It’s been proven over the last ten years with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that the U.S. military is over committed in the world. And that we can no longer afford to be the sole policemen of the world. But when we work with our allies like NATO in the Balkans in the mid and late 1990s and in Libya today, we can play a very constructive role in developing an environment where peace and democracy can take place. When our major allies step up and take a big role. Like what France, Britain and Egypt are doing in Libya today. That when we have and internationalist foreign policy, or as I would call a liberal internationalist foreign policy.

Instead of trying to do everything on our own like in Iraq a neoconservative foreign policy we can get bogged down and flirt with disaster and where we are wondering how we get out of it.

With Moammar Gaddafi out of power, or least no longer running Libya anymore, hopefully the Assad Regime in Syria is the next authoritarian dictatorship to fall. But I don’t believe that will happen on its own, nor do I believe the United States should try to force that on Syria either. But we can play a smaller, but constructive role in making that happen.

Posted in Originals, VOA News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Associated Press: ‘Gaddafi Rule Is Over’

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Associated Press_ 'Gaddafi Rule Is Over'

Source:Associated Press– Libyans experiencing freedom?

Source:FRS FreeState

“Libyan rebels claimed to be in control of most of the Libyan capital of Tripoli, and President Barack Obama says Moammar Gadhafi’s rule is over. Still, there’s no sign of the Libyan ruler. (Aug. 22)”

From the Associated Press

Now that it looks like Moammar Gaddaf rule is over in Libya and the forty year reign of the Gadaffi Regime has fallen and now it just might be a matter of capturing, or killing Moammar Gaddafi, its not too soon to look ahead at what Libya could be in the future. Assuming that the Libyan Rebels the Transitional National Council of Libya are democrats. And not just another authoritarian faction trying to install its own version of authoritarianism and its own authoritarian regime.

Libya has a lot of challenges unlike, Egypt which already has a functioning national government and it was just a matter of replacing the leadership. President Hosni Mubarak and his people.

Libya doesn’t have that. They don’t have a constitution, or other government institutions that can balance the country until a permanent government can take power. Actually, Libya doesn’t even have state or provincial governments, in a country thats physically the size of Iran a very large country. But with only 6M people, so whatever Transitional Authority emerges in Libya will have a lot of challenges facing it right way.

Libya will need to create a new national government, but a national constitution, as well as establishing provincial and local government’s. Because all of the power in Libya was based with the Gaddafi Regime in Tripoli.

I don’t claim to be an expert on Libya and saying that this would be the perfect system and form of government for them. But when you’re talking about a country that is this big one the largest countries in the world physically, that is deep in energy sources, a bottom-up approach when it comes to government and governing under a national constitution could work well for them. Something like a federal system and federal republic.

The current Federal Republic of Germany was created almost seventy years ago, as well as Italy. Where you create twenty or so states and provinces with their own democratic government’s that are accountable to their own people. With local democratic government’s within the states, or provinces.With the democratically elected federal government based in Tripoli that handles national affairs. Foreign relations, national security, interstate crime, security, the currency, economic development, financial aid to struggling communities, things that typical federal government’s deal with in Canada, America and Europe.

Libya needs a national constitution that lays out certain basic fundamental rights for the people that is hopefully secular, at least in nature, while protecting freedom of religion for everyone. As well as lays out the responsibilities for the national executive, legislature, independent judiciary and the relations between the federal government and the states and localities.

Libya is going to have to build a health care system, an education system, law enforcement, a judicial system, a military that can responsibly defend this large country, that doesn’t violate human rights. Rebuilding Libya, or just building Libya won’t be as challenging as building Afghanistan, which perhaps has never really had a national government.

Libya does has a very large supply of oil and could be if its not already an energy independent nation. So they do have some resources that they can use to build up their country and develop a lot of it. Because a lot of Libya has never been developed, one of the reasons why it only has 6M people in a land the size of Iran. The Gaddafi Regime never put in the resources to develop Libya to its full-potential.

Libya is yet another country that the United States shouldn’t step in and try to occupy. It’s about time that we learn our lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq. But what we can do with NATO, the United Nations, the European Union the Arab league, with the permission of the Libyan Transitional National Council, is to work with them to develop its country. With trade agreements, lifting economic sanctions on Libya, foreign aide so they can build up their schools, health care system, help them develop their legal system and governmental institutions.

But the TNC and the Libyan people need to figure out what type of country they are going to have in the future and the international community can help them reach that. Like stabilizing the Libyan oil industry, which would help them develop their country and provide the financial resources to do so.

It’s great that Moammar Gaddafi is out-of-power and at least not running that country anymore. But this won’t be over until he is captured and then the Libyan people can move on build their own Libya the way they want to and become a valuable player in the international community.

Posted in AP Video, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donnie Mossberg: Minister Malcolm X- ‘We Didn’t Land On Plymouth Rock’

Posted on July 31, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Donnie Mossberg_ Minister Malcolm X- 'We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock' (1)

Source:Donnie Mossberg– Minister Malcolm X, speaking in 1964.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“MALCOLM X We Didn’t Land On Plymouth Rock March 29, 1964”

From Donnie Mossberg

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else.

Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty.

But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival.

Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job.

But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole.

Posted in FRS FreeState, Malcolm X | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: ‘Tim Pawlenty Presidential Announcement’

Posted on July 15, 2011 by Erik Schneider

_ - 2021-05-18T145308.851

Source:C-SPAN– Governor Tim Pawlenty (Republican, Minnesota) announcing his 2012 presidential campaign.

“Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty held a town hall event at the Iowa Historical Building. He announced earlier in the day that he was running as a Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election. See the complete program here:C-SPAN.”

From C-SPAN

On paper I believe Tim Pawlenty looks like a solid presidential candidate in the GOP primaries. He’s a former two-term Governor of a good, sized State in Minnesota, where he was reelected and had a solid record.

Tim Pawlenty has legislative experience in the Minnesota House where he was the Republican Leader. He has solid public as well as private sector experience. Almost thirty years of both. He has executive, legislative, public, and private sector experience, including being and elected and reelected GOV of a major Democratic state.

Pawlenty is young at 50 for a presidential candidate, who could serve two terms as President, or serve two terms as Vice President and run for President. He has a good family, he’s a winner on paper, that should’ve been the GOP vice presidential nominee back in 2008, which could’ve spared America from ever being introduced to Sarah Palin. Which could’ve been his public service to America alone. He’s definitely a Conservative but not too conservative to serve eight years as GOV of a major Democratic state like Minnesota.

The minus’s of Governor Pawlenty are that he’s about as dull as a brand new pencil. He can give good speeches and interviews on substance, but put the interviewer and audience to sleep. Even if he were giving a speech at an insomniac convention. (The best and perhaps only sleep of their lives)

America is at the stage politically that we want our politicians, especially our presidential candidates to be exciting, to have celebrity appeal, to be cool. (Oh, I’m sorry, awesome!) One of the major reasons why Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. Which will hurt Tim Pawlenty in the general election, if he were to win the GOP nomination, if he doesn’t overcome that.

Also Governor Pawlenty has a lot of support from Christian-Right faction of the Republican Party. Which will play great in the GOP primaries, but of course will hurt him in the general election where he’ll need to win Independent voters, who tend to be liberal on social issues. So even though economic Libertarians and perhaps foreign policy Conservatives will like Tim Pawlenty, the question would be can he seem mainstream enough on social issues to keep the Republican Base and pick up enough Independents to win the election.

In this weak field of Republican presidential candidates for 2012, especially with Mitch Daniels not running, Tim Pawlenty is one of their strongest candidates and has as strong of a chance of winning the GOP nomination as anyone, if not better.

Posted in Republican Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing- Joshua Landis: ‘Syria’s President Offers Future Reforms, Blames Conspiracy For Protests’

Posted on July 13, 2011 by Erik Schneider

SyriaSource:The Real News– civil war in Syria

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Joshua Landis: Most Syrians want deep political and economic reform but fear ethnic civil war.”

From The Real News

The last thing that America needs to do is to get involved in another foreign war. Especially since we are already involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya as well. And with the President’s current position on the War Powers Act, I’m not willing to endorse the idea that we get involved in Syria either.

But this doesn’t mean the West including America and Arabia should be silent on what the Assad Regime is doing about the democratic protests in Syria either. There are other things that we can do to push Syria to stop the crackdowns on the democratic protests there that wouldn’t have to involve committing American or NATO troops there.

Like with economic sanctions there, but do it with a coalition, that includes America, Canada, the European Union and the Arab League. As well as sending in a military force that could include, Turkey, perhaps Israel, the Arab League and maybe even the European Union. Not to take down the Assad Regime and wipe out its military, but to provide protection and cover for the democratic protesters there, to prevent violence and to defend the protesters there.

And the American military could assist in a way not with troops or planes or ships, but with resources and equipment to whatever international coalition that would develop to protect the Syrian people from unfortunately their own government.

As well as we could essentially bribe members of the Assad Regime and it’s military to defect from that Regime, including President Assad himself. And get an agreement with the Syrian opposition to not prosecute, or punish whoever were to defect from the Assad Regime once they were to take power.

We could help push the Assad Regime out-of-power and to make room for a new democratic government, or a transitional government to start off there. Similar to what’s going on in Egypt until they elect a new government with peaceful means.

The last thing that America needs to do is get involved in another war, as far as committing more troops, bases, tanks, planes, ships, etc. Especially since we are currently paying for two wars that we can’t afford by borrowing all the money. But what we can do is assist others in doing this to promote a peaceful resolution in Syria and bring the Assad Regime down.

Posted in Foreign Affairs, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Kesler: The Grand Liberal Project

Posted on July 10, 2011 by Erik Schneider
c7a386fc-63fe-48f5-88a9-b36fb94d415e

Source: Hoover Institution– Charles Kesler

Source:FRS FreeState

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American socialism, a political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there are Socialist governors and other Socialists in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American socialism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better.

That we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs. “That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions”.

But the philosophy that I just described is not liberalism and is America’s version of democratic socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state, to assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so -forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives, even though they’re Socialists, which is very different. You have left-wing Progressives like FDR and LBJ and you have right-wing Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller.

But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out-of-work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.

When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.

Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that “personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them”.

Another thing about liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America.

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today’s so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Charles Kesler: On The Grand Liberal Project

Posted in FRS FreeState, Uncommon Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Think Progress: ‘Michele Bachmann on Social Issues’

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Think Progress_ Representative Michele Bachmann- on Social Issues

Source:Think Progress– Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) on CNBC talking about her social issues.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Michele Bachmann on social issues”

From Think Progress

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool, that represents fiscal Conservatives meaning business and Center-Right Republicans, national security Conservatives (probably meaning Neoconservatives) and people who are called social Conservatives. (Meaning Christian Conservatives) And in America that would mean the Christian-Right.

Apparently Representative Bachmann did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy. But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her.

This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Conservative-Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And she goes off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because her positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Christian-Conservative on social issues and a neo-con on national security and perhaps somewhat fiscally conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Conservative-Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still Conservative-Libertarians out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live.

Michelle Bachmann is a Christian-Fundamentalist a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for.

Posted in FRS FreeState, New Right | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- James Pierson: ‘The Rise and Fall of Liberalism’

Posted on July 7, 2011 by Erik Schneider

4ccc0f79-0bbe-4734-b657-9113b882fca6

Source:Uncommon Knowledge– Author James Pierson, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, talking about his book: The Rise and Fall of Liberalism.

Source:FRS FreeState

“In Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, James Piereson asserts that, as the 1960s began, liberalism was the single most creative and vital force in American politics and that the Kennedy assassination caused a split within this movement between its more traditional supporters and cultural activists that still exists today. Peter Robinson explores with Piereson how and why this happened — how a confident, practical, forward-looking philosophy with a heritage of accomplishment was thus turned into a doctrine of pessimism and self-blame, with a decidedly dark view of American society.”

From the Hoover Institution

Again I separate socialism from liberalism. And the progressivism From Teddy Roosevelt in the early twentieth century all the way up through the 1950s up until John F. Kennedy, is progressivism in its best form and classical form and I would argue in its only form.

And the so-called Progressives of today that are part of the New-Left that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response in favor of the civil rights movement and the Great Society and of course against the Vietnam War, is a much different and more leftist movement.

The Socialist New-Left: People who tend to be against authority all together as it relates to law enforcement and national security and this movement got behind George McGovern for President in 1972 and Senator McGovern ran with them and lost in a landslide as a result.

So these are people who are called Progressives today or “Modern-Liberals”, (a term I hate) but they aren’t either and I tend to call them Social Democrats or McGovern Democrats, McGovernites, Socialists, Communists in some cases, but they aren’t liberal in the Jack Kennedy sense or any sense at least from my perspective. Because they are not liberal, (to put it plainly) and tend to be illiberal. Because they tend to be against free speech and even property rights. They’re so far to the left on economic policy and so anti-authority and rule of law when it comes to law enforcement and national security.

One of the reasons why the death of President Kennedy was so tragic was for both political and ideological reasons (from a Liberal’s perspective) because the 1960s was the decade that brought so much economic as well as personal freedom to so many new Americans. With the tax cuts of the early 1960s and the civil-rights laws of the mid and late 1960s, American women entering the workplace. And had Jack Kennedy survived and then been reelected in 1964 which of course we’ll never know, we probably are not involved in Vietnam the way we were. At least not invading the country.

And President Kennedy probably moves much more cautiously in Vietnam and we probably would’ve played a more of a supportive role there and not invading North Vietnam. And trying to wipeout the Communists on our own. So the Democratic South could govern the country. But of course we’ll never know this.

The 1960s was a great time for real Liberals not the New-Left because of the Cultural Revolution that brought so much freedom to new Americans as well as the economic freedom that came in that decade. But by the late 1960s because of Vietnam and the New-Left, it was a bad time for the Democratic Party.

Both sides of the American political spectrum have their centers and their cores. And the fringes that sort of give the Left and Right bad names and make them look bad as if the entire Left and Right is like that. And that’s what we saw in the Left in America in the 1960s and 70s. Where the Left in America was no longer made up of Liberals and Progressives. But the New-Left emerged of people who I would call Socialists. Some cases even Communists. Or Occupy Wall Street people of today.

The New-Left are people who do not see America as a great country, but a force for bad in the World. And want to try to make the country like Europe even though Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson never wanted to go that far. And some people who call themselves FDR Democrats today do not even understand Franklin and just look up to him because of the New Deal. And see him as their vision for creating some type of European welfare state and finishing the job of the New Deal and Great Society.

But in the 1990s America liberalism made a comeback with Bill Clinton. And the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party was no longer in charge. And Clinton New Democrats were and the Democratic Party once again became about opportunity and freedom for all both economic and personal. Rather than being about the welfare state and government dependence.

As well as a country that could not only defend itself, but would do what it took to defend itself without trying to govern the world. Bill Clinton brought American liberalism back to life and made it a governing philosophy again and perhaps saved the Democratic Party as well.

Posted in FRS FreeState, Uncommon Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NFL Network: ‘Top Ten- Most Feared Tackler: Dick Butkus’

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Erik Schneider

NFL Films_ Dick Butkus- Most Feared Tackler (3)

Source:Sports Illustrated– Chicago Bears LB Dick Butkus, making the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1970.

Source:The Daily Press

“The most feared tackler linebacker and the best all time ever!!!”

From NFL Network

“Fill in themissing word: Dick Butkus is the————football player in the world.

Nastiest?Fiercest? Smartest? Strongest? Quickest? Angriest? Coolest? Roughest? Thinkabout it for a while—maybe a moment or two. After all, Butkus (left) thinksabout it constantly.

O.K., time’s up.According to those who know him most intimately—and you can count their bruisesto determine the degree of intimacy—Dick Butkus is all of the above and perhapsa bit more. In a sense, he is his own missing word in the act ofself-definition, though some may claim that he is merely the missing link. In agame as complex and specialized as pro football, where experts abound ateverything from placekicking to face-masking, it is impossible to determine a'”best player” in the overall sense. Yet if such a designation could bemade, Butkus would come close to filling it.

Listen to PhilBengtson, the Green Bay coach: “Butkus rates with any linebacker I’ve everseen—Bulldog Turner, Joe Schmidt, Ray Nitschke, George Connor. He has as muchenthusiasm as any player I’ve ever known, and you can always count on him beingsharp.”‘

From Sports Illustrated

“Butkus is arguably the toughest and most intimidating player in the history of the NFL.

Going across the middle against Butkus was considered attempted suicide. Butkus’s opponents said that he would bite, punch, kick, spit, claw, and scratch, whatever it took to get to the man with the ball.

He earned Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1969 and 1970 and played in eight Pro Bowls throughout his career.

NFL Films legend Steve Sabol says that Butkus’s career stands as the “most sustained work of devastation ever committed on any field of sport, anywhere, any time.”

NFL Films_ Dick Butkus- Most Feared Tackler (2)

Source:Bleacher Report– Dick Butkus: The Monster of the Midway.

From Bleacher Report

“The most feard tackler linebacker and the best all time ever!!!”

Dick Butkus_ The Most feared_mp4

Source:NFL Films– Ernie Accorsi is a long time NFL general manager who worked for both the Baltimore Colts and New York Giants.

From NFL Network

“Listen to those sound effects. The sound of Butkus hitting people sounds like the thud of distant artillery.”

NFL Films_ Dick Butkus- Most Feared Tackler

Source:USA– “Look out!!! Butkus is coming!!!”

From USA

When I think of tough players in the NFL, I think of guys who could and did scare the hell out of their opponents, if not people watching the game as well. I think of guys who not only scared the hell out of their opponents on the football field but on film in practice, putting the fear of God into offenders and offensive coaches and head coaches: “Damn, we are facing this guy this week, how are we going to block him or how many guys are we going to need to block him on any play?”

I can think of a guy who not only hit and tackled his opponents but also hit them so hard that they knew exactly who hit them, because they never felt that kind of pain from anyone else. Offenders were always trying to avoid Dick Butkus, who was a 6’3″, 240 to 245-pound MLB with the Bears from 1965 to 1973 and at his size was playing middle linebacker at a time when everyone else that size was an offensive or defensive lineman. This meant you basically needed an OL to block him, and probably a couple of them.

Butkus was all muscle, and not only huge and strong, but fast as well. He probably ran a 4.4 to 4.5 forty, which is similar to Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis, three LB’s who weigh about the same and are all muscle, but Taylor and Lewis played in an era where big LB’s were typical. The closest LB I’ve seen to Butkus’s size, strength, and athletic ability would be Brian Urlacher. I am not saying Urlacher is as good as any of these other LB’s, because he’s not, but he is headed to the Hall of Fame.

Urlacher is a 6’4″, 265-pound MLB, again the size of a DL playing middle linebacker because of his athletic ability and speed. These guys are freaks as athletes, but especially as linebackers, but Dick Butkus was the first freakish LB who was also a great player and is still the best at his position and best LB ever, period.

The name Dick Butkus itself sounds like a tough guy. It doesn’t sound like the name of a jockey. Wiley Pope sounds like the name of a jockey, but Dick Butkus sounds like the name of a macho individual who probably played football and perhaps even had to play football to relieve some of his testosterone. If he hadn’t played football, he might have ended up in jail or something. That last part is a joke, but you get the idea.

Some people who are less impressed with Dick Butkus (to put it mildly) make the argument that Butkus only played nine seasons, so his greatness isn’t as impressive because it wasn’t as long. What they fail to realize is that what Butkus accomplished in his nine seasons has been matched by no other, which is why he’s the best. Jim Brown also only played nine seasons but what he accomplished in nine seasons, no other running back has matched: nine-time Pro Bowler, eight rushing titles, and never missed a game as well.

Dick Butkus left the NFL as the all-time leader in fumble recoveries, 30 INT again in nine seasons as a MLB, not a corner or safety. He once sacked the quarterback 20 times in a season, again as a MLB not as a DL, also in a 14-game season. But these are just stats. The way to judge Dick Butkus is the same way you need to judge Jim Brown: what did he bring to to the table and what did offenses have to do to stop him?

Another way to judge Dick Butkus is to look at the position he played: he played MLB, meaning that the offense always knew where he lined up and could always prepare for him. He was predictable in a sense, he wasn’t a rush end like a OLB/DE Hybrid who lined up in several different positions always looking for the best matchup like, let’s say, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas.

Offenses knew where he was and still couldn’t stop Butkus. Dick Butkus was the best ever at what he did, because he basically couldn’t be stopped. He played the last four seasons of his career on two bad knees, which is why he only played nine seasons, but he was still an eight-time Pro Bowler. Dick Butkus was the most feared and the best LB to ever live.

Posted in NFL Greatest, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show- Ayn Rand: ‘Liberty vs. Statism’

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Libertarian-Objectivist Source:Liberty Pen– Objectivist author Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“Liberty vs. Statism’Ayn Rand regarding socialism and individual liberty.” From Liberty Pen.”

From Liberty Pen

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same.

Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is: keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much.

And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, let’s take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about.

Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism.

Posted in FRS FreeState, Mike Wallace Interview | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment