CBS News: Face The Nation- Alabama Governor George Wallace (1965)

Source:CBS News- Governor George C. Wallace (Democrat, Alabama) on CBS News Face The Nation, in 1965.

"On the March 4, 1965 edition of Face the Nation, Alabama Gov. George Wallace on charges of police brutality in Selma, Ala., the Sunday prior in what is now known as "Bloody Sunday." (CBS NEWS)" 

From CBS News 

The late George C. Wallace (the former Governor of Alabama) that was sort of half Progressive and half Neo-Confederate: someone you would see on the Far-Right of the Republican Party on social policy and part of the Center-Left of the Democratic Party or even Republican Party, because he was a Progressive on economic policy, but a Federalist as well. He wanted government to help people in need and to see that everyone has a shot at success in America, but believed the states should have the primary governmental responsibility when it game to government involvement in the economy. 

A good way to look at George Wallace's politics: think of Nelson Rockefeller on economic policy, who was also a Progressive-Federalist and Strom Thurmond on social policy, who was a Neo-Confederate, first with the Democratic Party and later with the Republican Party. 

George Wallace was essentially a Progressive Democrat, as it related to public infrastructure, public education, and other economic issues, but conservative in a federalist, sense that he believed the states should be controlling all of these things. He might even of been in favor of the Great Society of the 1960s, but wouldn't want the Federal Government to run these programs, that the country would be better off, if the states and locals ran these programs instead, 

So Governor Wallace was a man with progressive leanings on economic policy, but a Conservative in the sense that he believed in states rights and local control. The states rights issue, at least as far as I'm concern, didn't make him an extremist, except for as it related to civil rights, had he believed that the states were in better position to run all of these programs, but also believed in civil rights, equal protection, under the law for everybody, he would've been in the mainstream in the conservative movement on those issues. And more of a Progressive-Federalist on economic policy, that government has a major role to play in providing basic human services, but the States should run the programs, not the Federal Government.

I'm not going to say that George Wallace is the example of what an Independent should be in America. And what the Independence Party should be. But on economic and fiscal policy, he would fit in very well: government has a role to provide basic human services, but it's limited. And that government has a responsibility to spend every tax dollar that it collects responsibly and that the role it has in society should be limited and only tax enough to meet those services and thats consistent with strong economic and job growth, where we are not piling on debt and running huge deficits, especially in good economic times. 

America needs a strong conservative party, that believe in economic freedom, but also personal freedom as well. That allows Americans to live their own lives, instead of government trying to decide for them, how they should live. As well as believing in fiscal responsibility, as it relates to the entire Federal budget, not just the safety net, as well as limited government. And we are not getting that right now from the Republican Party, that thanks to Tea Party Christian-Right-Wing, has become an exclusive Far-Right, statist party.

CBC Sports: CFL 1991- WEST Semifinal- Vancouver Lions @ Calgary Stampeders: Short Clip

Source:CFL Video- A CFL referee making the call.

"CFL 1991 WEST SEMI FINAL BC-LIONS AT CALGARY STAMPEDERS" 

From CFL Video 

Danny Barrett is a blast from the past in the CFL. The Vancouver Lions-Calgary Stampeders rivalry, is one of the oldest and best rivalries in the CFL and they've played a lot of great close games against each other in the CFL Playoffs.

Sports Illustrated: 'NHL Players Sound Off On The Labor Crisis'

Source:Sports Illustrated- cover the NHL labor talks.

"Sidney Crosby, Henrik Lundqvist and other NHL stars sound off on the labor crisis. New York City, New York, September 13th. There are two typos in the Video: "Sydney" Crosby and "Jerome" Iginla. Hurr hurr." 

From Sports Illustrated

Did the NHL not learn a damn thing from 2004-05, I mean only in the NHL when their popularity and revenue is up. They do something to mess it up, they haven't figured out that they are both better off, when management and the players are getting their cut, rather then trying to one up the other.

Bad Lip Reading: Rick Santorum

Source:Bad Lip Reading- Rick Santorum: having an off day or is he just more honest when he's drunk? LOL

Source:The Daily Times 

"Rick Santorum" — A BLR Soundbite" 

From Bad Lip Reading

Imagine this: you’re a member of the opposition party, facing a President that has presided over the Great Recession (the worst recession we’ve had since the Great Depression of the 1930s) you’re facing a President that’s also presided over a fairly modest if not weak economic recovery (we are still growing at around 2% GDP with 8.2% unemployment) and you run your worst possible candidate to try to defeat the sitting President, in Rick Santorum. In fairness to Senator Santorum: Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign didn't make it to January. And Sarah Palin didn't bother to run for President.Perhaps she can't get a fly of Alaska. 

The up in-coming presidential election is almost completely about the economy, at least to Independent voters that will decide the presidential election. So all you need is a presidential nominee that can talk economics and communicate a plan back to strong economic growth. And bring down our high unemployment rate. You do that and ask the question: “Are you better off today, then you were four years ago?” You win the presidential election by 5-10 points and take Congress with you.

I just laid out the perfect storm for how Republicans should be able to win back the White House. But the problem is we are dealing with a Republican Party that’s now dominated by Christian-Nationalists that believe gay marriage and pornography are bigger threats to the country, than terrorism or the weak economic recovery. 

The Far-Right in America, doesn't live in the same world as sane people. They care more about ideological purity than they do winning presidential elections. Someone who represents their Far-Right, big government political ideology, then winning the presidential election and doing what’s in the best interest of the country.

The whole reason why Rick Santorum is seen as a serious contender for the presidential nomination, is because he appeals to Christian-Fundamentalists and blue-collar Republicans. When thirty years ago he would’ve been seen as nothing more than a Far-Right presidential candidate, like Pat Robertson. Like an escaped mental patient who wondered into a political convention and just got this vision that he was President of the United States and got someone to fill out the paperwork for him.

But the problem with the GOP today is that they have more Pat Robertson’s than Barry Goldwater’s or Ron Reagan’s, when it comes to social Issues and national security. Sure, the Far-Right has it’s presidential candidate. And a competitive shot at winning the presidential nomination. The problem for the GOP is most of the country isn’t part of the Far-Right. And someone like a Rick Santorum would have a hard time winning 45% of the vote. And would kill the GOP’s chances of retaining the House and winning back the Senate.

Ann Telles: Alex Jones Show- 'Nigel Farage: The Ron Paul of Europe Exposes Globalist Tyranny'

Source:Ann Telles- Nigel Farage (U.K. Nationalist Party Leader) is more like the Donald Trump of Britain, then anything relating to Ron Paul.

"UKIP leader Nigel Farage talks about the British state kidnapping children from UKIP members and other efforts to attack the anti-establishment political party. A weekly sneak peek at some of the news, sport and entertainment which can only be found in this weeks Rotherham Advertiser newspaper. Presented by reporter Dave Doyle. This weeks paper: Controversial Genius Drug Used by Rich People Secret Society Exposed Read More Here...

From Ann Telles 

I do believe it's possible that there would be some so called Euro superstate in the future, where large countries in Europe like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and others would come together and form a United Republic of Europe. 

Nigel Farage a Brit is an example of why Britain would never join this new union, because he's not the only Brit that believes that the current European Union doesn't work. Plenty of people on both the right and left in Britain tend not be pro-European Union. Perhaps believing that the UK should be part of the EU, but never to the point that the UK should surrender any of it's independence as a national state to Brussels or anyone else in Europe. A perfect example of this would be when the UK didn't join the Euro currency in the late 1990s. 

Nigel Farage is a British Nationalist who believes not only should Britain not join some potential future Federal Europe, but that the United Kingdom should leave the EU all together and perhaps even the United Nations. Which is strange in a country that tends to be pro-internationalist and working with their allies to keep the peace in the world.

Socialist Party USA: 'Response to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him." 

Read the rest at The Independent Political Report 

"President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation." 

From The White House

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do. 

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government. 

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt's party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party's. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

Buddy Roemer: The Last Word- 'Special Interest Money Controls Washington'

Source:Buddy Roemer- talking to The Last Word, on MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit. Buddy Roemer." 

From Buddy Roemer

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message when it comes to corruption and limiting special interest influence. The problem is a lot that he wants to accomplish, isn't currently constitutional. It would require a constitutional amendment or amendments to pass a lot of what Governor Roemer wants to do. Because it would get thrown out by the current U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. 

Passing constitutional amendments at this point to pass a lot of these progressive reforms that Buddy Roemer, Dylan Ratigan, whether they are good ideas or not, are at least five to ten years away and that's starting after you get a constitutional amendment out of Congress.

So my approach in all of this have been practical but aggressive: do what we can now that would hold up to constitutional scrutiny. And if that's not enough, try to pass constitutional amendments down the road. And my approach is more of a liberal-libertarian approach, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Yes, I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud of it. 

Has anyone ever asked why we have thousands if not tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lobbyists in Washington? ( To use a Billy the Kid line )  because that's where the money is. So force those people to disclose who they do business with and when and who they contribute too. 

And force all members of Congress and the executive branch to do the same thing within 24 hours of talking to these people and giving or taking their money. In other words: full-disclosure of campaign contributions, campaign and lobbying activity. 

My other reform would be to get a lot of of the money out of the Federal Government. But do it in a way that holds up to constitutional scrutiny. Reduce the size of the Federal Government. It currently has a Federal budget of 3.7T$ by far the largest Federal budget in the world. Pass that money down to the state and local government's and private sector. Especially as it relates to social insurance: turn those programs over to the states and locals. And design them to help and empower the people who need them.

Cut the the defense budget by 200B$ a year or more and pull our troops out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves. And by doing this we would be able to lay off a lot of defense contractors and cut a lot of pork out of the defense budget. And a lot of defense lobbyists as well and reduce the influence the defense industry has on the Federal Government.

Milton Friedman made a documentary movie in 1979-80 called Free to Choose. And in one part of that movie he had a segment about special interest influence in Washington. And one of his solutions had to do with the size of the Federal budget. Back when we were spending 18-19% of GDP instead of today where we are spending 24-25% of GDP.

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message about limiting special interests as I already said. But he has a couple of problems. Some of his ideas are currently unconstitutional and he's running for President in the wrong party to get done a lot of what he wants to do. 

If Buddy Roemer runs for the Reform or Independence Party, he might have a better shot at getting his message across. Also if he made his message about fiscal conservatism, limiting the special interest influence on the Federal Government by cutting back on the power of the Federal Government, he would get a lot more play in the media.