Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: ‘There is No Such Thing as Public Money’

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Rik Schneider

The Iron Lady

Source:The FreeState– The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

Source:The FreeState 

“Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983.”

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money” she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective)

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible.

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive.

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed.

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy.

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.

Posted in The FreeState, U.K. Tories | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CP Harding: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen: The Difference Between a Democrat and Republican in 1967

Posted on September 27, 2011 by Rik Schneider
Mr. Republican With CP Harding

Mr. Republican With CP Harding

Source:The FreeState

Former U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen 1959-69, explained it perfectly what it means to be a Conservative and what conservatism is. Or as perfectly as it can be explained in a three-minute video. When he said a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving freedom and our values. At least in a political sense and of course its different in a religious context and of course there’s neoconservatism. Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

And when it comes to politics, the government not spending money on things that could be spent and run better by others. Conserving constitutional rights and individual freedom and individualism. Without Minority Leader Dirksen, the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts as well as the 1968 Fair Housing Law ,doesn’t become law. Because he convinced several Republican Senators to vote for those laws and not to block them. But voting for cloture which is a Senate term and how the Senate cuts off debate and votes on legislation. Minority Leader Dirksen, didn’t believe in civil and constitutional rights for some, but for all. Actually more Congressional Republicans voted for the civil rights laws than Congressional Democrats.

Minority Leader Dirksen was a big part of the passage of the civil rights laws on the 1960s. Because he was a Republican that would work with Senate Leader Mike Mansfield 1961-77 and President Lyndon Johnson 1963-69. They had to work with the Senate Minority Leader on civil rights issues, because of the Southern Caucus, which was a Far-Right voting block in Congress. That would block and vote against civil rights legislation. Those Democrats would probably be Neoconservative, or Religious Conservative Republicans today like Senator Jim DeMint and others.

Because even Minority Leader Dirksen was the leader of a small minority in the Senate in the 1960s. Because of the Southern Caucus he had leverage to use against the Senate Democratic Leadership and the Johnson Administration. Conservatism, on foreign policy is about yes a strong defense that can not only protect our country, but vulnerable allies who can’t defend themselves against large aggressors. But only using our military to protect our national interest not force democracy around the world. Which is what Neoconservatives believe in, or abusing constitutional rights to protect the country. But protecting those rights to keep the country safe.

There are still some Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party today. Senator Rand Paul, Senator John McCain, Representative Jeff Flake and a few others. But in many ways Everett Dirksen represents what the Republican Party used to be before religious conservatism and neoconservatism came onto the scene in the Republican Party in the late 1970s. But before that the Republican Party was almost purely a classical conservative Party, with a progressive Northern wing. That until Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan came onto the scene wasn’t able to convince enough voters to put them in power. But when those people and others came in, they’ve been a pretty powerful party ever since.

Posted in Everett Dirksen, Mr. Conservative, The FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Real News: Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?

Posted on September 25, 2011 by Derik Schneider
Progressive Democrats

Progressive Democrats

Source:Free State MD

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Progressive Democratic Socialists in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours. Is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

Progressive Democratic President Harry Truman, tried to pass the Fair Deal in the 1940s. Which would be round two of the New Deal. Or round three after the New Deal and Great Society, if today’s Occupy Wall Street, or Coffee Party movement, the social democratic wing of the Democratic Party had their way. Making America’s version of the welfare state. Perhaps twice, or three times the size it is today and trying to make America look like Europe. With things like single payer health insurance, perhaps a national health care system with national hospitals. Universal pensions, universal public education, with the Federal Government taking a much larger role in funding our public schools. If not running them all together. Perhaps outlawing private schools. Universal higher education, so everyone can go to college that’s qualified for it. Perhaps nationalizing the banking system.

I mean the New Deal was considered radical in the 1930s and the Great Society was considered radical in the 1960s. But the Fair Deal, whether it came from Henry Wallace, or the modern Henry Wallace social democratic movement, would dwarf both agendas in America. Making our social insurance system a hell of a lot bigger than its today. And our taxes as hell of a lot higher than they are today. And this is just how it relates to economic policy and with a lot more regulations and taxes for our economy as well. Had Progressives, continued to push the idea of a Progressive Party which is what they would’ve called it when it started back in the Teddy Roosevelt era in 1912 and after that, maybe they’re a major political party today.

The Progressives had Henry Wallace in the 1940s and had they kept it going, Democratic Socialists would have their own party to call home today. And perhaps they would’ve left the Democratic Party. And Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, the Progressive Caucus and many others, would be in the Progressive Party today. Instead of representing the Far-Left of the Democratic Party today. But Franklin Roosevelt sort of co-opted parts of their agenda in the 1930s and the rest as they say is history.

Posted in FreeState MD, The Real News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report: ‘A Constitutional Republic’

Posted on September 16, 2011 by Ederik Schneider

Federal Expression_ Dan Smoot Report- 'A Constitutional Republic' (1)

Source:Federal Expression– The Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now

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

From Federal Expression

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

From Wikipedia

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

From Wikipedia

Dan Smoot Report

Source:New American Magazine– 1960s John Birch society writer and TV commentator Dan Smoot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New American: ‘Dan Smoot Report- Basic Constitutional Government’

Posted on September 13, 2011 by Ederik Schneider

Dan Smoot

Source:New American Magazine– Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report, from the 1960s.

Source:FreeState Now

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

From New American Magazine

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

From Wikipedia

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

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

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

From Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan- Taxes and Budget Deficit: October, 1987

Posted on September 6, 2011 by Rik Schneider

President Ronald W. Reagan- Deficits Don't Matter?

Source:J Branstetter– President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) deficits don’t matter? (1987)

Source:The FreeState

“Listen to the camera shutters when he moves his hands, they go crazy. President Ronald Reagan talks about the effects of different types of taxes on the budget deficit and why some taxes have a adverse effect on the economy. This takes place at the White House at a news conference in October 1987.”

From J Branstetter

I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics.

Supply side economics: you cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$.

President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President: “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts: “A riverboat gamble”.

David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts, a big mistake.

Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President.

President Reagan had a very good batting average in Congress as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

Tax and spender is generally a label that’s reserved for Social Democrats or Socialists (who are called Progressives or Liberals today) not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist: “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had.

Posted in RWR Presidency, The FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Beck: Michael Reagan Interview: The New Reagan Revolution

Posted on September 2, 2011 by Rik Schneider

Source:The FreeState

The Ronald Reagan that I most respected, was the Ron Reagan before he became President. Even though he did some good things as President as well. Like ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union and getting the economy going again after inheriting an awful economy from the Carter Administration. He of course didn’t do that alone, no President or government can of course. But the Ron Reagan that I respect most, was anti-Washington, anti-big government, pro-individual freedom. Believed in things like keeping government out of our wallets and bedrooms, he was even pro-gay rights.

Reagan pro-gay was rights after he became President in 1981. Pro-strong military, but only use when it was in our National Interest. He wasn’t a Neoconservative which is something else I respect about Ron Reagan. But as much as Reagan spoke out against big government, he expanded the Federal Government almost as much as President. And not just in the Defense Department, but he expanded the War on Drugs, more Americans than ever were in prison during his administration. A big reason for that to do with his expansion of the War on Drugs. And of course the record debt and deficit he piled up as President, because of his defense spending and his unpaid for tax cuts were a big part of that as well.

Ron Reagan was a classical Conservative, (just not fiscally conservative) perhaps even a small libertarian even when he was running for President. But as President even though he kept some of those principles, he was more of a pragmatist than anything else. “What do I have to do to get the job done, what do we have to negotiate. He had a Democratic House the whole eight years as President. Democrats had a large Minority in the Senate for six years and controlled the Senate the last two years. I give President Reagan credit for ending the Cold War and turning the economy around. But we paid a heavy price for it in debt, deficit, high interest rates and inflation in the early 1990s.

If you look at President Reagan’s accomplishments as President, the economy, the Cold War, getting three Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Sandra O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. As well as appointing a Conservative to Chief Justice in William Renquist. All this alone makes Ronald Reagan one of the most successful conservative president’s we’ve ever had politically. As well as winning the presidency in a landslide, being reelected in a landslide, his Vice President George HW Bush succeeding him. Actually I don’t know of a more successful Conservative President than Ronald Reagan politically. Dwight Eisenhower would be then only other one I would consider. As far as being able to get his policy’s put in place and having a positive record to show for them.

George W. Bush wasn’t a Classical Conservative, but a Neoconservative as President. With his borrow and spend fiscal policy and neoconservative foreign policy. To call Ronald Reagan perfect as President, you have to be either the president of his fan club and vowed to never say anything negative about him, or not have been alive during his presidency and never read, or seen anything about his presidency. Ronald Reagan was the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century, with only President Eisenhower would be someone I would consider. And that’s all the credit I’ll give him.

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

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson- Charles Moore: On Margaret Thatcher

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Rik Schneider
Uncommon Knowledge

Source:Hoover Institution– Charles Moore, talking about U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Source:The FreeState

“Charles Moore, a former editor at the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator Magazine, discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher.”

From the Hoover Institution

If you want to know what classical conservatism is and what it means to be a Classical Conservative, then look at Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom and her political career. She’s the worst nightmare for Socialists. Democratic and classical in Britain, but perhaps everywhere. Just like Ronald Reagan is the worst nightmare along with Milton Friedman of Socialists in America and perhaps everywhere else as well.

But it’s not just Prime Minster Thatcher’s economic conservatism and her ability to articulate it as well as she did along with her humor. Like saying things like the problem with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money to spend. Which as a Liberal, I feel the same way myself . But it was the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher did not want government interfering with how people lived their lives, generally speaking. One thing I respect about British politics, is even though there’s not a consensus on what the size of the British Government should be.

Britain, currently debating big government socialist democracy. The Conservative Party, would clearly like to see the British Government become smaller. The Labour Party, would probably like to see the British Government become bigger along with the Democratic Party. But all three of these parties believe in social freedom, generally speaking. And a lot of them believe that government shouldn’t be interfering in how people live their lives. Something a lot of people in the Republican Party in America have forgotten with how they’ve moved toward neoconservatism and religious conservatism.

Neoconservatism, really isn’t very conservative and actually very expensive. And it is more of a version of authoritarianism, with a progressive bent when it comes to social welfare. Canadian politics, is pretty similar to British politics that they there’s a consensus there. That Canadians should have a lot of social freedom. But they differ on how much involvement the Federal Government there should have in the Canadian economy. But what Socialists fear about Classical Conservatives is that they will lose power. That government will lose influence in how much control they have over the people. In the economy and that the people will have all of this freedom and become less dependent on government and make a lot of money.

There are still plenty of Maggie Thatcher Conservatives in the Conservative Party. I would put Prime Minister David Cameron on that list. Except his rhetoric tends not to be as partisan and as blunt. Even though I don’t know him nearly as British political analysts. But there aren’t many Thatcher or Reagan Conservatives left in the Republican Party in America. But they no longer run the Republican Party anymore as that party has moved farther right and into a more authoritarian direction.

Neoconservatives in America, would like to see the Federal Government become more involved in marriage with DOMA and other things. And with their support of the Patriot Act to use as another example. But Classical Conservatives, truly represent the best of the conservative movement and are truly pro-freedom. Especially individual freedom and not just economic and political freedom.

 

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

See Black Power: Minister Malcolm X: ‘We Didn’t Land On Plymouth Rock’

Posted on July 31, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Source:FRS FreeState

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, for both. 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

Republican Study Committee: Washington Spending 101

Posted on July 30, 2011 by Rik Schneider
Borrow and Spender

Borrow and Spender

Source: The Free

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. Turn the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Bob Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. When he left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War.

Posted in RWR Presidency, The FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment