Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

Source:The FreeState

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.” 

From Invest Bliguru 

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

Dennis Miller Live: 'Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness'

Source:David Gagnon- Real Time With Bill Maher on Dennis Miller Live, in 2002.

"Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness" 

From David Gagnon

As Dennis Miller said, America is a playground of ideas, not a marketplace ideas. The idea that someone can't express themselves and say exactly what they think is as Un-American as slavery, communism, theocracy, everything else in the U.S. Constitution that we as a country don't believe in, because we as individuals tend to believe in the right to be free and be able to think for ourselves and make our own decisions in life. Communist states and theocratic states are the places you go if you are too afraid to think for yourself, hear something that you disagree with, or make your own personal decisions, not America. 

Again as Dennis Miller who I don't agree with on everything also made the perfect point in his monologue when he said the answer to hate speech is free speech. Just like the answer to ignorance is education. You don't want assholes in your country, make the case why they're assholes and make the case for why they're wrong and you are right and educate the rest of the society. Or close your ears and eyes and pretend you live in a perfect world or utopia and that no one you disagree with and dislike hasn't even been born yet, let alone able to express themselves in a free society. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: ‘That if You Want More Jobs, the Government Should Get Out of the Way’

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Leon Botstein moderated this debate.

Source:The FreeState 

“As Mr. Botstein frames the question, “We are in a recession. Some people consider it a contained depression, perhaps the worst economic period since the Great Depression. And we don’t really know what to do about it.” Mr. Buckley thinks he does: “Bring back full employment by getting government out of the way.” After all, “A lot of people say they can’t build houses; they can’t afford the interest. Why is interest so high? Because of inflation. Who causes inflation? Only the government can cause inflation. The private sector has never discovered how to do it.” Mr. McGovern is equally sure that, say, the savings-and-loan crisis “is not the result of too much government intervention … Rather it is the opposite: the result of too little regulation and monitoring that permitted irresponsible S&L managers to rob that industry and the American public.” Mrs. Schlafly takes up the cudgels against overreaching legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the latest Clean Air Act, and we’re off on a vigorous exploration of what government can and can’t reasonably do.” 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Episode FLS112, Recorded on March 26, 1992

Guests: Richard K. Armey, Phyllis Schlafly, Herbert Stein, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Robert Eisner, Michael E. Kinsley, Hyman P. Minsky

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

This looks like a debate between economic libertarians and people who would be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists everywhere else in the developed world, but since America is so special, they are called Liberals here. Because Americans leftists tend to be scared to death of the s-word. 

On the Right, you get government is already doing too much and what we need to do now is cut government, regulations, and taxes, and expand free trade in America. 

On the Left and actual Left (not liberal) you get government isn’t doing or taxing nearly enough and should be doing a lot more of that to meet the needs of the people and expand the economy. 

This is sort of a traditional left-wing vs right-wing debate in America about the role of government, that was brought to you by Firing Line With William F. Buckley.  

Talking Points Memo: 'Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Governor Sarah Palin (Republican, Alaska) at her best or worst (depending on your perspective) in 2008.

"All the best moments of Sarah Palin interviews, starring Sarah Palin, Charlies Gibson, Katie Couric, Sean Hannity, and special guest appearance from John McCain himself." 

From Talking Points Memo

If there's one political campaign as well as the record that has followed their post-political campaign that has determined the rest of their political career its Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign for vice president and just about everything thats come after that campaign following 2008. And why Sarah Palin will never be President of the United States and may never run for President of the United States. Because even though it's only been three years since Governor Palin has come onto the national scene, there's already a library of material that could be used against Palin. Making her look like Mrs. Not Ready for Prime Time.

Seeing Russia from her backyard making her an expert on foreign policy, was just the opening act that kept people in the theaters. And wanting to see the movie again, renting the movie when it comes out, buying their own copy, giving the movie to people for gifts, selling the movie to people. Standing in waiting lines or making reservations to see the movie.

And three years later because of the success of the Sarah Palin Movie, The World According to Sarah Palin, a real life comedy, there have been sequels to this movie. That if anything are more popular and have also won awards for Comedy of The Year as well. 

The reason why Sarah Palin is not running for President right now, well Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry beat her to it. So she would have to compete with two other people and they are already showing America how not to run for President. So that would be one lesson in how not to run for President that Sarah Palin wouldn't be able to teach the country. 

Commonsense Capitalism: Milton Friedman- Free To Choose: The Welfare State (1980)'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Milton Friedman documentary about the welfare state.

Source:The FreeState 

"Free to Choose Part 4: From Cradle to Grave Featuring Milton Friedman"

From Common Sense Capitalism

This video lays out why I’m against the welfare state, especially run by government, because of the built-in incentives that incentivizes people to go on Welfare Insurance, and not continue to work. Because they can collect more money collecting Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance. 

No Welfare or Unemployment check should be worth more than money that person would make if they were working. Because it encourages people not to work and collect public assistance instead. Paid into by people who work for a living and making people on public assistance dependent on public assistance for their daily survival. 

NFL Network: NFL 1972- America's game: Miami Dolphins

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins FB Larry Czonka.

"NFL America's Game Super Bowl 7 Champions 1972 Dolphins."

From NFL Network  

Miami Dolphins DT Mann Fernandez who was a member of both Don Shula Dolphins Super Bowl champions, as well as all 3 AFC champions from the 1970s, appeared on the 1972 Dolphins America's Game documentary. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:NFL Network- Miami Dolphins DT Manny Fernandez.

"The team wasn't especially big, quick, or flashy. It rarely blew away opponents. Its best player was a fullback, its defense was anonymous, and it played without its Pro Bowl quarterback for most of the year. Still, the 1972 Miami Dolphins are the only team to finish a season undefeated -- 17-0, to be exact -- in National Football League history. Fresh off a Super Bowl loss the season prior, Miami played like a team determined to win a championship, racking up 14 straight regular season wins. The Dolphins offense relied heavily on their ground game, running the ball 613 times and boasting the first pair of 1,000-yard runners in Larry Csonka and Mercury Morris. On the other side of the ball, the "No Name Defense" was no less dominant, giving up the fewest points in the league. Then, in the postseason, Miami enjoyed the return of quarterback Bob Griese, who was sidelined most of the season due to leg and ankle injuries. In Super Bowl VII, Griese threw a 28-yard touchdown pass to Howard Twilley for the game's first score before a few scares by George Allen's Redskins threatened the Dolphins' bid for an unbeaten year. Join NFL Films as they retell the saga of the '72 Dolphins, the only club to play a perfect season in the NFL. America's Game uses exclusive interviews from Csonka, Don Shula and Manny Fernandez to reminisce about Miami's run to 17-0." 

Source:Amazon- Super Bowl 7 championship ring.

From Amazon

What's the definition of perfect?  I guess it's someone or something that lacks weakness and doesn't make mistakes.  That's an impossible accomplishment, especially when we are talking about human beings. If we were perfect, what would be the point of living?  We've accomplished everything and therefore can't learn anything else because we are perfect.  I guess we could show the world what we know and spread our perfection around so to speak. Hey, look at me, I'm perfect, be like me.  This is all nonsense.

None of is perfect and I wouldn't have it any other way, because we learn whether we are intelligent by making mistakes. The 1972 Miami Dolphins were not perfect, but they did have a perfect record.  They played 17 games and won 17 and, when it comes to sports, that's the best you can do. But they didn't have a perfect team, they just made fewer mistakes then anyone else in the NFL in 1972 and had a perfect record.  They played the best as a team that season, so much better that they went undefeated, and they did this by being the best team.

They didn't have the best talent.  I would argue that the team they beat in the 1972 AFC Final, the Oakland Raider, had better talent and a better team even though they lost 2-3 games that year and the Dolphins lost none.  I would also argue that the Washington Redskins, the team they beat in Super Bowl 7, had better talent and a better team as well.  If their quarterback, Sonny Jurgenson, who's one of the best QB ever and in the Hall of Fame (a better QB than the Dolphins' QB Bob Griese, who's also in the Hall of Fame) had been healthy and played in that Super Bowl, I believe the Redskins would have won, but of course we'll never know.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins were exactly what a great team should look like. They understood what kind of team they had, the type of talent they had, and the type of players. They didn't win because of the overwhelming talent they had, not including their Head Coach Don Shula. 

The Dolphins had five Hall of Famers from all on offense, except for MLB Nick Bonoconti. QB Bob Griese, FB Larry Csonka, WR Paul Warfield, and OG Larry Little. They ran a Power Ball Control Offense that ran the ball about 70% of the time. Their No Name Defense was exactly that.  Most of the players on that defense weren't known outside South Florida very well until they won that Super Bowl.  Perhaps not that many people in South Florida were familiar with the No Name Defense, but they were all very good players, defensive tackle Manny Fernandez, middle linebacker Nick Bonoconti, safety Larry Anderson, and others. 

Head coach Don Shula knew what type of team he had in 1972, that they weren't going to blow teams away with their talent and had to beat teams as a team, run the ball well, and run the ball a lot, Bob Griese hitting key passes off of play action, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense, stuff the run, attack the QB, and get a few takeaways. 

The 1972 Dolphins, the team with the perfect record, won because Don Shula knew exactly what type of team he had, what type of system to have, and how to utilize his players to get their best performance and execution every week for all 17 weeks. And he had the players who understood that if they made 1972 about themselves rather than the team, they were going to fail and maybe even not make the playoffs. But together as a team, with every player and coach understanding their role the best that they could and playing their part, they would be champions. 

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

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Are Medical Costs Controllable (1994)?'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Dr. Charles Sanders, participating in this Firing Line discussion.

Source:The FreeState 

"Yes!, is our guests' resounding answer to the title question--and without

unmaking what is generally agreed to be the world's finest health-care system (CS: "One

of the best things about the Canadian system is the proximity to the U.S."). Drs. Sanders

and Janeway emphasize portability (the ability to retain your medical insurance if you

change jobs) and insurance for catastrophic illness--which, says Dr. Janeway, could be

taken care of for "not a huge amount of cost to the American public per year." Dr.

Kurad--who was driven out of active practice of his specialty by "the paperwork mill

and the hassles with insurance and Medicare"--tells persuasively what business can do to

cut the red tape."  

From the Hoover Institution 

"Episode S0999, Recorded on January 26, 1994. Guests: Richard Janeway, J. Ward Kurad, Charles A. Sanders. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

In 1994, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress (House and Senate) pushed for health care reform and seeing that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. And two of the areas that they focused on where quality, affordable coverage and controlling medical costs. 

Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and House Minority Leader Bob Michael, strongly opposed the so-called Clinton Care approach to health care reform which would mean more government involvement in the health care system. And this is what the Firing Line debate is essentially about.  

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich- 'Where is The GOP Headed (1984)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

Source:The FreeState

"Episode S0627, Recorded on December 6, 1984

Guests: Newt Gingrich, Bill Green. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Mr. Gingrich was already a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP, and Mr. Green was prominent among the remnant of "Rockefeller Republicans." Ronald Reagan having just become, barring the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, a lame duck, Mr. Buckley asks his guests to focus on "the future of the Republican Party post Reagan." They do so more in terms of programs and philosophy than of personalities, in a crisp exchange. Mr. Green, for example, defends the Federal Government's public-housing program: when it was begun "fully half of the housing in this country either lacked indoor plumbing or was so run down it was a real threat to the life and health of the people... Now, as we've gotten to the point where the housing in this country is much better, a much better case can be made for something like the housing voucher ..." Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, sees modern liberalism as still "find[ing] it very hard to believe that average people can do anything for themselves, and so they have a tendency to provide more and more professional help, which somehow doesn't help you." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1984.

By 1985 the Republican Party was doing as well as it ever had perhaps in the entire 20th Century. With President Reagan just being reelected in a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. And Senate Republicans retaining control of the Senate and electing Bob Dole as their Leader. 

And House Republicans while still in the House minority, but with 190 or so seats, giving them a chance to win control of the House in 1986 and make Bob Michael who was the Minority Leader, the next Speaker of the House. 

The Republican Party had Ron Reagan as President, Bob Dole as Senate Leader and Bob Michael as their Leader in the House. With a popular President the Republican Party was probably at their height of power in 1985. 

What this interview with Representative Newt Gingrich in 1984 was about, was where was the Republican Party headed in the next 2-4 years and perhaps after President Ronald Reagan. With Newt Gingrich being one of the Republican visionaries in Congress and the broader Republican Party.  

Firing Line: William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: 'The Role of Liberals in the Republican Party'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R, Maryland) in 1978.

Source:The FreeState 

"Episode S0313, Recorded on March 16, 1978

Guest: Charles McC. (Charles McCurdy) Mathias

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Mathias: Republican, Maryland: on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1977.

"The role of Liberals in the GOP." Originally from Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

Sen. Charles Mathias who was a Republican Senator from the great State of Maryland from 1969-87. And before that a Representative from the great State of Maryland from 1963-69. For a total of twenty-four years in Congress (and yes, I’m familiar Maryland political history) probably should’ve been a Democrat all along.

Which is why Senate Leader Bob Byrd or his deputies in 1978, tried to recruit Senator Mathias to run for reelection as a Democrat in 1980. Because Sen. Mathias supported things like the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, civil rights in the 1960s and I’m sure several other things and probably voted with President Jimmy Carter as much or more.

Then Senator Mathias voted against President Carter and may have voted against President Reagan as much as he voted with him. Jimmy Carter and Ron Reagan being extremely different politically and both fit in well with their parties.

Senator Mathias was a Liberal Republican (if there is such a thing) from again the great State of Maryland. A very liberal Democratic state where the voter registration is something like 70% Democratic. To get elected as a Republican in the State of Maryland, especially statewide. Senator Mathias had to vote Democratic. Or at least vote with Senate Democrats enough to seem liberal enough to Marylanders to get reelected.

Moderate Republicans or people who I would call classical Conservative Republicans can get elected and reelected in the Republican Party. Because they vote republican on economic policy. 

World Ahead Publishing: Kasey S. Pipes- 'Dwight Eisenhower, Not Lyndon Johnson, Was First Civil Rights Champ'

Source:World Ahead Publishing- Little Rock, Arkansas, is literally one of the first battles of the American civil rights movement.

Source:The FreeState 

"Kasey Pipes, author of "Ike's Final Battle: The Road to Little Rock and the Challenge of Equality," describes how Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower -- not LBJ, as liberals often claim -- was America's first civil rights president."   

From World Ahead Publishing

Source: The Daily Post- President Dwight D. Eisenhower & Dr. Martin L. King. 

Dwight Eisenhower, was not the first President to come out in favor of civil rights or human rights for everyone in America. Abraham Lincoln deserves the credit for that for the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the African slaves. And Harry Truman allowed soldiers of different races to serve together with an executive order in I believe in 1945. 

What President Dwight Eisenhower deserves credit for and I believe its accurately reported in his presidential legacy, was enforcing rule of law in America for all the people. Rule of law as a Progressive Republican, is something that Dwight Eisenhower believed in deeply and I believe he picked that up in the military. If Rule of law is not properly enforced, then rules and laws become meaningless.

Ike Eisenhower, saw his job as President to enforce rule of law. Something he did very well as President, with enforcing all of those U.S. Supreme Court decisions that allowed students of different races to go to school together and sending the Army into Little Rock, Arkansas to make sure the Governor of Arkansas allowed those African-American students go to school with the Caucasian- American students there at Central High School in Little Rock. 

And these types of decisions not just enforcing laws that you agree with, but enforcing all laws which is what rule of law is about, would not play well today with the Far-Right of the Republican Party. Which is one reason why I believe Ike Eisenhower wouldn’t be able to get the Republican nomination for president today, because he was a Center-Right, Progressive Republican, who not only believe in the Constitution, but equal rights and constitutional rights for all Americans. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'Two Friends Talk: Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1990.

Source:The FreeState 

"Episode S0873, Recorded on October 11, 1990. Guest: Ronald Reagan. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are no fireworks at this meeting of two old friends, but there is broad and deep discussion of the world and how Mr. Reagan may have changed it. WFB: "Conceivably, might there be USSR-American cooperation in developing SDI?" RR: "Well... I have told [Gorbachev] that I would advocate making that information open to the world ... in return for all of us destroying our nuclear weapons. But I said the reason for having it is- I used the example of World War I. I said all the nations of World War I met and outlawed poison gas, but we all kept our gats masks. I said, Who can say that down the way somewhere there won't be another Hitler, there won't be another madman that could use the knowledge of how to make weapons and blackmail the earth?"  

From the Hoover Institution 

Source:Niskanen Center- William F. Buckley and President Ronald W. Reagan, at some White House event. I hope that's not too specific for you.

It’s good to see Ron Reagan together with Bill Buckley. As far as I’m concern two of the fathers of the modern classical conservative movement. Who both had a role in making that movement national starting in the mid 1960s. With Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign that went a long way in putting classical conservatism on the map in American politics, because of the states that Senator Goldwater was able to reached. Winning Southern states that up until 1964, the Democratic Party had owned and Senator Goldwater was able to win a few of them. And of course Richard Nixon was able to win a lot of Southern states in 1968 as he was elected president. 

Wide World of Wisdom: The Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman: 'Freedom vs. Fairness (1980)'

Source:Wide World of Wisdom- Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1980.

Source:The FreeState 

"Milton Friedman discusses freedom vs. fairness. From: Donahue - 1980" 

From Wide World of Wisdom

Milton Friedman has a point when he talks about freedom vs. fairness, when he says he’s not for fairness, but for freedom. Give people the freedom to live their own lives and resources to make that happen for them. 

I believe what Professor Friedman is talking about here, is justice, which is not the same thing. In a true just or free society, the people have the right and ability to take out of society what they put into it. That not everyone is entitled to a successful, rich life, just the people who are successful, who've done well for themselves and society. 

Unlike the socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) definition of economic fairness or justice, that everyone in society is entitled to live well, simply for being alive. Regardless of what they produce for themselves or society, if anything.  

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Charles Percy- 'A Foreign Policy For The GOP (1967)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

Source:The FreeState 

"Guest: Charles Percy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. 

For more information about the Firing Line broadcast records at the Hoover Institution Archives, see:OAC. 

"September 11, 1967: Senator Percy is a bit given to the stump-speech mode ("I truly believe that we will fight Communism just as effectively, if not more so, [by not] fighting it just in Havana and in Hanoi. We have to fight Communism in Watts; we have to fight it in Newark, and we have to fight it in Harlem; and we have to fight it by building a better America there, and not giving any chance for a Communist society to point to the hypocrisy of America and say that the American dream is only available to some people"), but we do come down to earth periodically, with concrete observations about, e.g., Yugoslavia, Poland, and Red China."  

From the Hoover Institution 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

When this show aired, this was before even President Richard Nixon was President. In 1967 Progressive Democrat Lyndon was still President. Had Senator Barry Goldwater defeated President Johnson in 1964, the Republican Party probably would've had a consistent message when it came to foreign policy. 

But pre-1969, the Republican Party was completely out-of-power in the Federal Government and had fairly small minorities in Congress (House and Senate) so what Bill Buckley was trying to do here with this interview with Senator Chuck Percy (Republican, Illinois) was to try to get an idea where the Republican Party at that point stood when it came to foreign affairs and national security. Which is a tough task for anyone, especially a junior senator which is what Senator Percy was at this point, even a junior senator an U.S. Military veteran like Senator Percy.  

What Senator Percy seems to be arguing here is that for America to have credibility abroad and be taken seriously abroad and be a true beacon of freedom (that Conservatives seem to want us to be) that we need to be strong as home as well. That the best way to fight communism and Communists at home, is to have to strongest society and freedom for as many Americans as possible at home. Which is why he was talking about poverty in Los Angeles and other places in America.

Senator was arguing that the best argument for Communists, is all the poverty and lack of individual freedom for so many Americans at home. Which I believe is a very solid Progressive Republican argument. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment (1973)

Source:Amazon- Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr.

Source:The FreeState 

"Taped on March 30, 1973 The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as Buckley puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn." 

From Amazon

"Guests Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Scott debate the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading.

In this Battle of the Feminists episode, conservative Phyllis Schlafly and liberal Ann London Scott debate the consequences of passing the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly was the National Chairman of the STOP ERA campaign, while Scott was Vice President for Legislation for the National Organization for Women. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading. Scott died of breast cancer two years after this episode." 

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr- debating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973.

From IMDB

I believe all good Americans across the political spectrum believe in equal rights for all people. That there’s now a consensus that’s still growing as we get younger and more liberal as a country that we shouldn’t be allowed especially the public sector, to be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, color, creed, nationality, religion and now even sexuality. That in a liberal democracy like America, free people meaning free people not a particular type of people, have the constitutional right to live freely and not be harassed by government.

No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights.

And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone.

The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.

People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered.

The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Wilbur Cohen and The Great Society in 1967

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Wilbur Cohen and The Great Society in 1967

One of the things if not the main thing that united the Republican Party in the mid and late 1960s, was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda and all the social insurance programs that came with it. Similar to President Clinton in 1993-94 with his deficit reduction plan, crime bill and failed health care reform attempt. Conservatives in America saw the growth of the Federal Government in the 1960s as a threat to individual freedom. Which is why they united behind Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and conservative candidates for Congress in 1966 and 68. And why they united behind Richard Nixon for President in 1968.

The GOP saw the Johnson Administration wanting to make America like Europe with a large welfare state. With things like Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Public Housing, increasing public education funding from the Federal Government, etc. And conservatives in America like Bill Buckley and others saw all of these programs as unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. And didn’t like the new tax hikes that came from Medicare, especially since America was a fairly low tax country. Pre-FDR New Deal, LBJ Great Society and still a low tax country today compared with Europe. But Classical Conservatives and Libertarians, still believe that America is still overtaxed as a country.

American Conservatives wanted to get behind candidates and politicians who would work to downsize or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society. And they saw the Johnson Administration and Secretary Wilbur Cohen of the Department of Health, Welfare and Education, as people who wanted to make America more like Europe from the Federal Government. At the expense of individual freedom and state and local governments and try to centralize the power with the Federal Government.

This is how Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and other Conservatives got into to power. And how Dick Nixon got back into power in 1968 and how more Conservative Republicans got elected to Congress in the late 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And how the Republican Party became relevant again in the Federal Government and across America. By running against the New Deal and Great Society and saying that they want to change it and still try to solve the same problems. But do it in a way that gives the people more individual freedom in how they solve their own problems.

In some ways the Goldwater defeat in 1964 and the LBJ Great Society was great for the Republican Party. Because it brought them together and united them behind the same agenda. And why you saw more conservatives run for Congress and get elected especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Like Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, Orrin Hatch, Al Simpson, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and may others. Because the Republican Party came together behind the same agenda. And how the Rockefeller faction of the party almost faded away.

Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: William F. Buckley Interviewing U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield- Was Barry Goldwater a Mistake?

By the time the 1964 presidential campaign came around, the Republican Party was already in bad shape. They lost the presidency in 1960, Democrats controlled Congress with huge majorities. And even added to those majorities in 1962 and the classical conservative base of the Republican Party, felt the needed to fight back and take control of the party as they did in 1964. After what they saw as moderate leadership from the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s. And they saw Vice President Richard Nixon as a moderate presidential candidate.

This is how Senator Barry Goldwater became the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and one reason why Dick Nixon didn't run for president in 1964 and why Governor Nelson Rockefeller was treated so badly at the 1964 Republican Convention. Because a new political faction was in charge of the GOP. That believed the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was moving the Federal Government too far away from federalism. And growing the Federal Government too rapidly with the Great Society and they felt the need to step up and nominate someone who they saw as a Classical Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Who would bring the Federal Government back in line with the U.S. Constitution.

This is how exactly Senator Goldwater ran his presidential campaign and even had some success in the South. And won some Southern states that the Democratic Party use to own. 1964 was the start of a movement in American politics, that started to move the South from being a purely Democratic region and made it more competitive for Republican candidates. Which is one reason how Dick Nixon was elected President in 1968. And got reelected in a landslide in 1972 and how the Republican Party won 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88. Four of those elections that they won were by landslides.

The Republican Party paid a heavy price for Senator Goldwater's landslide lost in 1964, but for only two years. From 1965-67 where the Democratic Party had the presidency and huge majority's in Congress, but it was a short two years, because by 1966, President Johnson was starting to become unpopular. And Congressional Republicans picked up 47 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Republicans were still in the minority in both chambers of Congress, but back in the ballpark, with a shot at making Congress competitive.

Because in 1968 Republicans picked up five more seats in the House to give them 192 and seven in the Senate to give them 43. So the democrats no longer had such huge majorities in Congress and be able to over run the Minority Party. Because the Republican Party now had new states and districts that were put in play for them. In some ways the 1964 general elections was a great defeat for the Republican Party.

Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1968: Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer?

This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus : Firing Line: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1968: Does The Republican Party Have Anything to Offer?

In 1964 the Republican Party was at its lowest point since the FDR New Deal era as far as their power in America. Especially in the Federal Government, where they were the opposition minority party. Democrats had the presidency with President Johnson, they had huge majority's in the Congress. With 289 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. The Senate Republican minority couldn't even block anything on their own. And this was back when it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. And yet the Republican Party had one of the most effective Senate leaders in Senate history, in Everett Dirksen.

House Republicans, a very small minority party. Only had 140 seats but they did have a very effective Minority Leader in Gerald Ford. Who went on to become Vice President of the United States and then of course later President of the United States. Who was pretty effective at keeping his conference united against what the President wanted to do. The Great Society being a pretty good example of this, but Minority Leader Ford was also very effective at coming up with alternatives to what President Johnson and House Speaker John McCormack brought to the House floor. The Republican Party was going through a very rough period.

Having been thrown out of power in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon lost the Presidency to Senator Jack Kennedy and Democrats retained large majority's in both the House and Senate. And to make it worse, House and Senate Republicans both lost seats in the 1962 mid-term elections. Generally the opposition party picks up seats in Congress in the mid-term Elections. So the Republican Party was in pretty bad shape. And then of course in 1964 when Senator Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to President Johnson and Democrats again picked up seats in the House and Senate as well.

Which is one of the reasons why Representative Gerald Ford beat then House Minority Leader Charlie Halak. Because House Republicans felt they needed a new voice and new Leader and Gerry Ford was a very effective Minority Leader. And he helped his conference rebuild itself. And this is where Senator Goldwater's presidential campaign was very successful. Because he got the party back to classical conservatism and won some states in the South. And Minority Leader Ford was able to take that message to the House and his conference. And effectively communicated their message on TV and radio and in print.

House Republicans under the leadership of Minority Leader Gerald Ford, were able to offer and alternative agenda to President Johnson and House Democrats. And House Republicans picked up 47 seats in 1966 and Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968. And in some ways 1964 and the aftermath was the start of the Republican Party rebuilding. And building their party in the South.

The John Birch Society: ‘Robert Welch Predicts Insiders’ Plans to Destroy America (1974)’

Source: JBS- Robert Welch-

Source:The FreeState

The classical conservative movement didn’t start in 2009 with the Tea Party movement. Certainly not in 2000 with George W Bush, who had a neoconservative presidency, or in 1994 with the Gingrich Revolution. Or in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution or in 1964 with the Goldwater Campaign. The current thinking of classical conservatism goes back to the early 1900s or longer. That was about protecting individual freedom and constitutional rights and fiscal responsibility and having a foreign policy that’s based only on protecting our own national security. Thats centered a lot around the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which Classical Conservatives and Libertarians. Believe limits what the Federal Government can do and this movement really started to grow in the 1930s and 40s.

Thanks President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and then they saw the growth of the United Nations and other international organizations post-World War II and of course they didn’t like that. And then with President Johnson’s Great Society agenda in the 1960s, with the rise of Senator Barry Goldwater and his 1964 rise to the Republican Party nomination for president. And then with Congressional Republicans picking up a bunch seats in the 1966 mid-term elections. With help from Dick Nixon and of course with Dick Nixon’s Silent Majority presidential campaign in 1968. When Dick Nixon became President in 1969, Classical Conservatives, the JBS and others, weren’t very happy with President Nixon and his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agency’s.

The conservative movement of course is much broader than this. And there Neoconservatives as well as Religious Conservatives in it. And Classical Conservatives seem moderate to Religious and Neoconservatives, with both Political Factions. Having at least some influence on the Tea Party movement, especially Religious Conservatives, much less so with Neoconservatives. What really drives Classical Conservatives, is the limited government Movement. Restricting what the Federal Government as well as state and local government’s. In what they can do and to try to cut back the size and budgets of the Federal Governments And get behind political candidates and public officials who’ll support this agenda.

Which is also what Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party movement are about as well. The John Birch Society and other Classical Conservatives have influenced the Tea Party movement in a positive way. Trying to move the Republican Party past-George W Bush’s neoconservatism. And try to get the Republican Party past this and back to being about limited government. And if they don’t believe the Republican Party is about limited government, then they’ll find a party or create their own. That will do this for them.
Source:The John Birch Society

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

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.

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

Source:CP Harding- interviewing Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) in 1967.

Source:The FreeState

“Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of Civil Rights legislation. Dirksen served in the Senate from 1951 to 1969 and was seen quite often on the evening television news shows. His banter with newsmen Walter Cronkite and Roger Mudd and his unmistakable “raspy” voice made him famous throughout the country and the world.

This video was shot in Southern Illinois in 1967 or 1968 and features a young reporter (CP Harding) from WSIU Television (Southern Illinois University) asking Senator Dirksen just one question for a proposed children’s news program. Toward the end of the interview the reporter becomes concerned because he was getting a signal that they were almost out of film….and Senator Dirksen just kept talking.” 

From CP Harding

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.

Conservatism, is about fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than you take in and not spending money on things that you shouldn’t be funding.

Conservatism 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 Neo-Confederate or Tea Party 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 a lot of 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.