Peter Schiff: Michael Moore: ‘Americans Wouldn’t Need Guns if We Had More Welfare’

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Ederik Schneider

.
Source:FreeState Now

I don’t know where Michael Moore gets his facts if you want to call them that. More like talking points, spin and so-forth that the Far-Left in America uses to get their message across. But looking at the facts in America before concluding that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment or the right to self-defense because only ‘White people’ believe in it and use and buy guns so somehow under the far-left’s logic again if you want to call it that, but if you at the facts gun ownership is multi-racial in America.

But logic tends to be logical, so lets say ideology and under their ideology the Far-Left’s ideology 2nd Amendment is somehow racist because it only benefits one race in America. Look I don’t believe in that, just looking at the Far-Left’s arguments you know what this is why I don’t watch MSNBC. Even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, except for Lockup and perhaps the replay of Meet The Press because I like to sleep in on Sunday. Because they take people like Mike Moore and other far-Leftists seriously and treat them as people of wisdom and so forth.

Guns aren’t just in rural America and in the South where Anglo-Saxons tend to be a large majority in those communities. Go to a big city at some point like Detroit, Cleveland, New York or whatever the big city, these cities are very diverse racially and ethnically and have gun stores and other places where you can buy guns. And they are bought by mixture of people of different racial and ethnic groups. Freaking Ed Schultz Progressive talk show host on MSNBC owns firearms. This isn’t a racial issue or an ideological issue.

The 2nd Amendment in America has broad racial and ideological support because a wide range of Americans have use for firearms. Doesn’t mean as a country we don’t believe in gun control. But to suggest that the 2nd Amendment is racist and that Caucasians as a group buy guns to arm themselves against African-Americans is flat ignorance. The Far-Left in America likes to speak about the need for tolerance, equality, equal rights and so-forth. All things I believe in as a Liberal otherwise I wouldn’t be much of a Liberal. Except they don’t believe in tolerance when it comes to Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxons and rural Anglo-Saxon males. And in many cases their own race, which is why they are part of a fringe in America. Because Americans tend to believe that tolerance, equality and equal rights should apply to all Americans, not just minorities.

Posted in FreeState Now, New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Daily Beast: U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann’s Most Outrageous Comments

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Derik Schneider

.
Source:Free State MD

Some people may think George W. Bush is the Democratic Party’s favorite punching bag. But the fact is President Bush has been out of office for over four years now, thank God! And he’s looking pretty good compared with today’s GOP. So he’s not as much fun to take shots at and make fun of, except when old videos appear about his presidency and some of the less intelligent things that he said. During that long and felt like indefinite presidency with one disaster after another, like going to war on bogus intelligence.

And President Bush trying to change the reasons that we went to war and certain weapons of mass distraction, I mean destruction weren’t found shortly after the invasion. Or Hurricane Katrina, the financial and economic meltdown of 2008. I could go on but there’s actually something else I would like to talk about. To come up with the most outrageous statements that Michelle Bachmann has ever made even in her little over six years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives. Is a tall order.

This is a little difficult for me because that’s like coming up with best plays that Larry Bird ever made playing basketball. Or the best passes that Joe Montana ever thrown, or the best home runs that Hank Aron ever hit and so-fourth. Also I don’t live in Representative Bachmann’s House district or state, thank God, otherwise I would’ve moved or been kicked out of there, whatever came first. And I’m not in Congress myself so what I hear about her is from the national media or from blogs. But I can limit it two or three as someone who follows politics closely and has big annoyance when it comes to political hypocrisy and contradiction.

When Representative Bachmann announced for President in the summer of 2011, as I and every other blogger and comedian were celebrating about all the new material that was going to come our way free of charge and at her expense coming from Michelle herself, she announced she was in favor of two constitutional amendments. One was to outlaw pornography and the other was to outlaw same-sex marriage both at the federal level. Keep in mind this coming from someone who calls herself a constitutional conservative.

Also keep in mind this coming from someone who knows as much about conservatism and the U.S. Constitution as a fish knows about Wall Street. During her fourth month presidential campaign she also came out against big government. Well that makes sense because that’s an issue she knows a lot of about with all of her positions in support of big government. Michelle has a habit of bashing things she’s in love with, well take big government to use as an example. And claiming to love and support things that she says she loves. Take well the U.S. Constitution to use as an example.

What if I were a Republican today, first of all I would ask myself why am I a Republican today and if I could answer that question and I was still a Republican, I would want George W. Bush back leading the GOP. And prey that he learned something from all of his dumb mistakes as President and didn’t repeat them. Because GWB looks like a God compared with today’s GOP and Michelle Bachmann represents the intelligence and information gap in the Republican Party. And why they can’t win elections they are supposed to win easily going in.

Posted in FreeState MD, The Daily Beast | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rachel Maddow: Montana U.S. Senator Jon Tester Backs Marriage Equality

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Derik Schneider

Jon Tester
Source:Free State MD

I use to think that the Democratic Party was made up of Liberals such as myself, Progressive-Socialists, or Social-Democrats, like Rachel Maddow to use as an example and people I would call Moderate-Liberals. The Hillary Clinton’s of the party, who probably in their heart are pretty liberal. But are afraid that if so-called Independents knew how liberal they were, that would cost them support. So they are kinda closet Liberals if that makes any sense. “Look, we are with you and just can’t let the whole world know about it.” Gay marriage should be a no-brainer for anyone on the left, or even center-right. Because it gets down to do you believe all Americans should be treated equally under law based on how they conduct themselves in society and so-fourth. Not what they do in their personal lives. We obviously don’t treat criminals as equally as law-biding people, but should all Americans be treated equally under law based on how they carry themselves, or not.

Should straits be given special treatment under law just for being strait over gays, or not. Thats the bottom line and what the whole gay marriage debate is about. I still believe that the Democratic Party is a party of Liberals and Progressive-Socialists or Social Democrats. The question is where does the other faction of the party fit in, how should they be labeled. How do you label someone who by in large look like Democrats politically, but likes to play it safe on key social issues. I’m not playing mind-reader or anything, but if I had to guess Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t have a problem with gay marriage four years ago. And perhaps even longer than that. These so-called evolutions on the issue is a political evolution and not a philosophical evolution.

Personally, I bet gay marriage hasn’t been a problem for these safe Democrats for a while. But officially they’ve played it safe. Until they knew they wouldn’t get hurt by being in favor of gay marriage, or needed to be in favor of it. Like in the case of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in order to win further political support. Thats not being a leader, but playing it safe and playing follow the leader. Maybe the term for Democrats who don’t like to take stands and standout and go out on a limb even when its the right thing to do, should be Safe-Democrats. Democrats who play it safe until they have to take a stand and that’s when they show their true liberal democratic credentials. Which is why even though I love being a Democrat and love the Democratic Party, I’m not here to say that we have all the Saints and we are perfect. Because have our own flaws as well.

Posted in Congress, FreeState MD | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Walter E. Williams: Are We Equal?

Posted on March 26, 2013 by Ederik Schneider

Walter E. Williams
Source:FreeState Now

There’s a big difference between equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity and equality at all costs. All of these things are guaranteed to us as Americans, except for equality at all costs. And compare equality opportunity and treatment with no one should be treated better than anyone else or that no one is entitled to more success or wealth in America. Which to put it simply equality at all costs that we are all equal and no one deserves to be treated better anyone else. Which is sorta the Progressive notion of equality and why they believe in things like affirmative action. Equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity means that no Americans shall be treated better or worse based on race or ethnicity or any other non relevant characteristics they may have that has nothing to do with the goals or positions that they are shooting for. That they aren’t to be treated better or worse based on these factors.

The fact that 25% of African-Americans live in poverty when the country as a whole has around a 17% depending on which numbers you look at when it comes to poverty. Thats not racist its just that fewer African-Americans have an opportunity to get a better education than European or Asian-Americans because more often than their counterparts they tend to grow up in poverty. Which is a problem but it’s not racist or that more people in the European and Asian-American communities tend to be wealthier on average and have better jobs and their kids have a better access to education and so forth is not racist either. These groups are just taking advantage of the opportunities that were given to them not based on race but how they were raised and so forth.

People doing better than people from another race or ethnicity is only racist. When they are rewarded opportunities because of their race over people who were as qualified as they were or more qualified. Which is why we have civil rights laws in America but it’s not racist just because some groups of people tend to do better than others. As long as they weren’t given those opportunities based on their race. And people who aren’t doing as well weren’t denied opportunities based on their race.

Posted in FreeState Now, Liberal Democracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: The John Stossel Show: Ann Coulter- The Case Against Liberty

Posted on March 23, 2013 by Ederik Schneider

Big Government Neoconservative

Source:FreeState Now

I’ll give Ann Coulter credit for something. For perhaps the first and last time. Perhaps the first time I heard her make a good point about anything. That as long as we have a so-called welfare state where we have to pay for others health care and mistakes and so-forth, that we shouldn’t be forced to subsidize things that could add to those costs. Which is why she’s against legalizing marijuana. Which as a Liberal I think about myself. I believe in a high deal of personal freedom, as long as it comes with personal responsibility and rule of law. The problem that drug warriors have and Ann Coulter being one of them, is that the argument that they use against marijuana is the same argument that can be used against alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. All drugs that have health risks and come with a cost for society and that we’ve decided as a country that we are going to tolerate those risks. As a cost for living in a free society and liberal democracy. And more than half of the country has already decided that marijuana is a risk worth taking as well.

Ann Coulter makes the best case for why marijuana and other illegal narcotics should be illegal. I still disagree with that for several reasons. That freedom has its awards and risks. So the question is who should be left with the power to make those decisions. Government making those decisions for us, or should the people be able to make those decisions for themselves and hold them accountable for the decisions that make. Rather than government trying to make decisions for people in how best to live our own lives. People they don’t know and never met, generally from a far away place. The other problem that drug warriors have is their contradiction to their argument that they don’t even see, or won’t acknowledge. That is they are fine with alcohol, tobacco, steroids, prescription drugs, sugar, caffeine and so-forth. All legal drugs that have costs and risks for society that have harmed and ruined lives and have taken lives.

But marijuana and other illegal narcotics for drug warriors are not acceptable, because they believe it has high costs and risks, for society. That will harm people and ruin as well as take lives. And that’s something they haven’t been able to respond to. In any democracy or free society, there’s going to be risks versus reward, benefits and harm. The question is who should make the decisions with how people live their own lives. The people them self who one way, or another will have to deal with the consequences of those decisions whoever makes them. Or government trying to make decisions for people it doesn’t know from a far away place in most cases. And I’m always with the individual when it comes to our own lives.

Posted in FreeState Now, Liberty Pen | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Billy Blythe: Vintage Redskins- Dave Butz

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Ederik Schneider

.
Source:Real Life Journal

Back in 1975 then Redskins Head Coach/General Manager George Allen traded for S.t. Louis Cardinals defensive tackle Dave Butz, who was probably the best trade that coach Allen ever made at least in Washington. Because Butz would go on to anchor the Redskins defense for the next fourteen seasons. While the Cardinals after the 1975 pretty much went in decline failing to make the NFC Playoffs for the rest of their time in S.t. Louis. After making the NFC Playoffs both in 1974 and 1975.

Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells didn’t have much in common, but they both believed in at least one thing together when it came to football. That you win football games by controlling the line of scrimmage. You run the ball well and stop the run, you protect your quarterback and pressure the other teams quarterback. And you protect the ball and come up with a takeaway or two.

You do those things well and you’ve dramatically increased your chances of winning. Because now you are in charge of who can move the ball down the field because you can run and throw. While your opponent is having their running game stuffed and consistently seeing their quarterback hit and under pressure. Joe Gibbs gets a lot of credit for the Redskins having such great offensive teams while he was in Washington as he should. But the fact is in his tenure and under assistant head coach Ritchie Pettibone, the Redskins except for maybe 1981, were always in the top ten in defense.

Because the Redskins were about as good as anyone or better than anyone in the 1980s at controlling the line of scrimmage. On both sides of the ball which is why their pass rush led by defensive ends Dexter Manley, Charles Mann and others including Dave Butz, was so good, because the Redskins forced teams to throw the ball a lot. And consistently throw the ball under pressure because they couldn’t run the ball.

Dave Butz was the anchor of the Redskins defense in the 1980s because he consistently commanded double teams if not triple teams. Because of his awesome size and strength, 6’7 300 pounds plus. Looked more like an offensive tackle with better mobility back in an era when defensive lineman weren’t generally that big. Which freed up a lot of one-on-one matchup’s for DT Darryl Grant, Dexter and others.

Posted in Real Life Journal, Redskins Classic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Foreign Affairs: Gideon Rose: ‘Iraq in Retrospect’

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Iraq War
SourceForeign Affairs– welcome to Iraq, also known as Hell on Earth.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Ten years ago this week, the United States and a few of its allies invaded Iraq, writing the final chapter in Washington’s checkered decades-long relationship with Saddam Hussein. Thanks to problems of both conception and execution, the Iraq war ended up becoming the most egregious failure in half a century of American foreign policy, costing a vast amount of blood and treasure for all concerned and tarnishing the United States’ reputation for international leadership, honesty, morality, and even basic competence.

A swift and successful invasion dissolved into chaos once Baghdad fell: liberation turned into occupation; local uncertainty turned into insurgency and then civil war. Four long years after the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Firdos Square, a new and better-resourced American strategy managed to build on some positive local trends and stabilize the situation, so that by the end of the decade Iraq had pulled back from the brink and gained a chance at a better future. But even then nothing was guaranteed, as low-level violence and political turmoil continued; the withdrawal of the last American troops in December 2011 left behind a deeply troubled country…

From Foreign Affairs

“Gideon Rose, editor of Foreign Affairs, discusses where planning for the Iraq war went wrong.”

Gideon Rose_ Iraq War - Google Search

Source:Carnegie Council– Gideon Rose speaking about the Iraq War.

From Carnegie Council

The Iraq War is a tough issue for me. Because pre-Iraq invasion and up until the summer of 2003 when it was discovered that there were no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the Saddam Regime was so weak that it couldn’t defend itself and probably could’ve been taken out by what’s going on currently in Syria, or what happened in Libya by simply arming the Iraqi people and having a civil war and of course all the money that was not only spent but borrowed that American tax payers are going to have to payback, I was in favor of it.

Congress and the American people simply didn’t have enough information to make a decision like this and that had we just spent 3-6 months, or taken all of 2003 even to think about this, if we just had more information and better information, I don’t believe Congress approves of this war. Even if Republicans controlled both the House and Senate when. I’m not trying to sound like John Kerry from back in 2003-04 and say I was for it before I was against it, but that’s exactly my situation. And I’m not trying to make excuses about why I was for it.

I thought after 9/11 that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a Baathist dictator in the heart of Arabia in a big country the size of Iraq, we are talking about California here, with the Islāmic terrorists in the area, would be bad for not only the broader Middle East but for America as well. Because Saddam’s regime was so weak at the time and could’ve used the money that would come from selling his weapons to terrorists groups and other authoritarian regimes. What I didn’t know and this comes from not doing all of my homework is that Saddam no longer had any WMD and didn’t have connections with terrorists groups at all.

One of the legacies of the Iraq War is that there were many mistakes made upfront and have Bipartisan hands written on them. Like the fact that the Democratic Party led at the time by Tom Daschle controlled the U.S. Senate and that there was a divided Congress as a result. So Senate Democrats led by Leader Daschle could’ve simply said no to the Iraq War and killed it in Congress by themselves. Takes both chambers of Congress to write laws, but it only takes one chamber to kill laws and resolutions.

Senate Democrats could’ve simply said, “no, we are not ready to do this. Congress doesn’t have all the information that we need to make this decision.” And Joe Biden, Carl Levin and Bob Graham Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees could’ve spent the last couple months of that Congress in 2001-02 holding hearings to get more information about Iraq. And the situation it was in financially, militarily and everything else.

The legacy of the Iraq War is really about bad intelligence and not having enough solid information. How we not know going in that Saddam was as weak as he was and his country was as weak as it was. How we go in there without enough people to occupy this big country and not knowing that the Iraqi people weren’t ready to govern themselves. Takeover the military and law enforcement agencies and govern the country and the provinces and so-fourth. And how we not know how weak their economy was especially in the energy sector where this country should be energy independent.

All of these things we should’ve known especially Congress upfront before you commit your country’s resources and manpower to invade a country like this. Had we had this information upfront we would’ve known that Saddam isn’t a threat to anyone outside of his country. The legacy of the Iraq War on the positive is that one of the worst dictators and serial murderers and tortures of the 20th Century was eliminated allowing for a country rich in resources and in people to do very well.

With a real shot at a bright future, but at heavy cost for the Iraqi and American people. In lost treasure and in money and lives and for the most part. The lessons of it are how not to invade a country and do your homework and get all the needed information available and decide based on all of that. Is it worth it or not and go from there.

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

David Martin: Video: President John F. Kennedy’s Last Speech at Ft. Worth Prayer Breakfast Before Being Assassinated: JFK The Liberal Democrat

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Erik Schneider

.
This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress

Liberalism at its core, forget about classical versus modern and classical liberalism is not libertarianism and so-called modern liberalism is a form of progressivism or democratic socialism, but liberalism at its core is about individual freedom. And government’s number one and only job is to protect individual freedom for those who have it and still deserve it. Meaning that haven’t hurt any innocent people.

And expanding individual freedom for those who don’t have, but need and deserve it. Through things like education and job training, empowering those who need it to get themselves the tools and skills that they need in order to live in freedom like the rest of the country. Liberalism is not about the state especially the Federal Government and that government needs to be big enough tax enough to have the resources to take care of people. Because it doesn’t trust individuals and the private sector to be able to make their own decisions for themselves.

Liberals believe that individuals once they are educated and have all the important information available and that there are the right rules in place to prevent people from abusing innocent people and punish people when they do, that the individual more often than not will make the right decisions for themselves. Especially better than government doing that for them. Because the individual knows what they need and what they want to do in life. Not government especially when its far away from the individual.

Liberalism is not about economic freedom or social freedom or political freedom or equal rights. But it’s about individual freedom that covers all of those things. That individuals have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. That is adults have this right as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Liberals aren’t pro-state or anti-state, not pro-big government or pro-small government. But pro-good government that’s limited to only doing the things that we people need it to do that we can’t do for ourselves or can’t do as well.

I know I’m being vague on what I expect and want government to do. But that’s on purpose because this is not a Liberal Manifesto where I layout what are all the liberal positions on every single policy. But to layout what Liberals believe at our core. That our philosophy is about individual freedom, pure and simple. That the number one and only job of government is to protect our freedom. For those of us who have it and still deserve it. And for those of us who don’t have it but need and deserve it.

Like I said so-called modern liberalism which is more statist and perhaps not even Liberal at all, “that the number one job of government is to protect people even from themselves, which is why it needs to tax and spend and limit individual freedom for our own good . So we don’t mistakes with our own lives”. Like with the New York City soda ban that was just thrown out, this is not liberal, but a form of progressive statism.

Jack & Bob

Jack & Bob

Posted in Classical Liberalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ABC News: Raw Video: Pope Francis Elected: Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina Leader of Catholic Church

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Erik Schneider

.
This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress

It’s not so much that I don’t believe in God, I’m Agnostic officially, which is the reason I’m not very religious, but I tend to not only look at politics as a Liberal, but also at life as a Liberal. And it’s not that you can’t be a Liberal and be religious. America is a liberal democracy and by far the most religious country in the Western world outside of South America at least. And we have a lot of Liberals in this country including in the Democratic Party who are very religious.

The reason why I’m not very religious, is because I tend to look at my politics though a liberal lens and believe in things like individual freedom and a high degree of tolerance as far as how we judge and treat people. That individuals should have a high degree of freedom in how they live their lives as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And what you get from a lot of these Christian as well as Islamic faiths is a high level of intolerance and that there’s only a certain way for people of faith to live their lives and that freedom should be limited.

If there was a religion and maybe there is and I haven’t found it yet that believed in things like individual freedom and not looking down on people just because they drink or smoke or dance, live with their girl or boyfriends before they get married, pre-marital sex, having kids together before they are married, didn’t look down on gays for being gay, watched adult entertainment, gambled their money. All of these things that at least the Religious-Right in America views as immoral and if anything should be outlawed. If there was a Religious-Left that was truly about tolerance and freedom, then maybe I could be part of that.

If there was a religious-left that was truly liberal and not Socialist, the Religious-Left in America tends to be more socialist than liberal ,but if there was a real religious liberal movement in America, that was truly about treating people the way you want to be treated and was really about individual respect and so forth, do on to others what you want done to you, then I would have more respect for religion in America.

It’s not that I can’t be religious as a Liberal, but that I can’t be part of a religion that puts down people just because of how they live their personal lives. Even if they aren’t hurting any innocent people with what they are doing. Where there isn’t any real level of privacy and where we are all supposed to be collectivists and members of a larger group. Instead of being allowed to just be ourselves and live our own personal lives.
Pope Francis

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

Professor Conor Gearty: ‘Liberty and Security For All’

Posted on March 10, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Source:FRS FreeState

If you want to know what I think about the War on Terror. Here are a few quotes that I’ll give you and that should give a pretty good idea. “Give me liberty or give me death”, “without liberty, there is no security” and I would add vice versa. As a Liberal I believe the number and only role of government is to protect individual freedom and that security had to be part of that. But not at the expense of individual freedom, which has been my main problem with the so-called War on Terror. Which more of a real war than the so-called War on Drugs. Because at least in the War on Terror, the United States Government has gone out and is doing everything it can to win this war. But the War on Terror as Vidal Gore once said is not real. Because the War on Terror is really just a phrase, a catch-phrase.

But wars are fought between people and against each other. The Gulf War and the War in Iraq were real wars fought between countries. Not a war against a certain philosophy or ideology. But my main problem with the so-called War on Terror is that its been a war to secure security at all costs. Even at the expense of freedom and constitutional rights. Which is why it’s doomed to fail because again without freedom there is no security. Democrats biggest problem as well as my biggest problem with President Obama has been when it comes to the so-called War on Terror. That except for Afghanistan and Iraq, its real hard to tell the difference between Barack Obama, whose a man in many ways I like a lot and even love, but to tell him apart between President George W. Bush except for Afghanistan and Iraq, its real difficult to tell the two president’s apart.

Both president’s support the Patriot Act, actually it was President Obama who extended the Patriot Act after it expired. Which has Fourth Amendment flaws in it, like Uncle Sam being able to checkout what Americans are reading and who they are hanging out with. If they believe, but don’t have to prove in a court of law that these people are terrorists, or associate with terrorists. They both support indefinite detention which is the U.S. Government being able to hold terrorists suspects again indefinitely, again if they just suspect them of being associated somehow with the broader War on Terror. But never even have to give these suspects a court date, or hearing. Or treat them with the basic constitutional rights that someone suspected of murdering their spouse, or something.

And then there’s the warrantless wiretapping, where the U.S. Government can snoop in on people and who they are talking with and associating with. Again if they suspect these people of being associated with violent Islamism. If you think about it, the so-called War on Terror has been a neoconservative dream, or fantasy that’s come true to life. Thats now being carried out by someone whose supposed to be a Liberal Democrat and care a lot about things like individual freedom. Especially as they relate to civil liberties. The Far-Right, has to be in love with what they are seeing from President Obama when it comes to these things. Except for Afghanistan and Iraq where they would want the United States to be occupying those countries indefinitely. Which is all the reason I need alone to have big issues with how President Obama has carried out this so-called war.

Social Democrats, or the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party and the Far-Left in general in this country, have issues with President Obama across the board. Even though they backed him in 2008. Expecting he would be some type European Social Democrat ideologically in how he governed. And I could give you a whole list issues of why they don’t like him. But economic issues, or his broader foreign policy, hasn’t been my issues with President Obama. But with how he’s conducted the bogus neoconservative War on Terror.

Posted in Book TV, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment