Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved: Debating the Role of Government in America

Source:Free State MD

You ask the question’s what’s the role of government and you’ll get many different answers across the political spectrum in America. From Socialists who want government to do almost everything. Who believe the best society is the society that is as equal as possible. With no rich, middle or poor people. "And the best way to do that is through centralize power through the Federal Government". To Libertarians who want government to do almost nothing. Who don’t believe in limited government. 

Today's Libertarians are talking about  small government, not limited government. And basically believe that government’s job is to protect individual liberty and constitutional rights. To Liberals such as myself who believe in limited government. And just want government there to do the things that we can’t do for ourselves or do as well. To Conservatives who believe that government should be even more limited. And there are less things that the people shouldn’t be doing for themselves.

Thats where we are as a country when it comes to the role of government. And where its people on the Far-Left that want the Federal Government doing almost everything when it relates to the economy. To people on the Far-Right who believe that government isn’t doing enough to regulate people's personal lives. That we have too much individual liberty and we need more restrictions on who we live our own lives. 

To Libertarians who want Government out of the economy and out of our social lives and leave us alone. And these are the three loudest voices in this debate right now. Believers in limited government, Liberals such as myself are in a debate where its about whether we should double the size of the Federal Government ,or cut in half. And we are sort of in that middle of that debate.

I myself, I’m a Liberal Democrats and a believer in limited government. That it should only do what people can’t do for themselves or as well. Based on the authority it has in the U.S. Constitution. And for me that’s, law enforcement, national security, foreign policy and regulation of the economy. Protecting innocent people from the abusive harm of others. Not trying to protect people from themselves. That it’s about individual liberty and responsibility for me. That's what you get in a liberal democracy. Instead of government trying to protect us from ourselves, or do for us what we can do and do better for ourselves.

Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved: Debating The Role of Government - Part 2

Source:Free State MD

I think both Thom Hartmann and Michael Medved hit it on the head in their opening statements and perhaps the first and last times they’ll agree on anything in their lifetimes and they are about the same age. But they said it as well as it could that this debate is really about what the role of government should be in America. And they both said that the role of government should be about protecting our rights and that’s exactly what the role of government should be. 

So then the question should be what are our rights. And what Americans have the right to in America and the right to life is exactly that we as Americans have the. Right to our own lives and the right to live our own lives. Not run the lives of other Americans or harm or take the lives or run the lives of others. And that it’s the job of government to protect our right to live our own lives. Not to run our lives and try to protect us from ourselves or to try to say what’s good for us and what we should be doing with our own lives. But protect our right to live our own lives.

This means that we have the right to freedom, but not that freedom is given to us by government or anyone else, but that we have the right to get the freedom for ourselves to live our own lives and we have the right to live our own lives as long as we aren’t infringing on the rights of others who are innocent from, living their lives. In other words hurting innocent people.  

Where government comes in is to regulate how we interact with each other so we aren’t hurting innocent people. But not there to run our lives or protect us from ourselves and the other role of government is to create and keep up an environment where we all can use the freedom to live our own lives. And that means things like an effective and affordable infrastructure system. Universal access to quality education and a safety-net for people who fall through the cracks of the private enterprise system so we can get on our own feet and take care of ourselves.

That’s really the only right that Americans have the right to. Life and the right to live in freedom and live our own lives and. The only thing that government has is to protect out rights to life and freedom. And everything else that we get in life has nothing to do with our rights to those things that we get. But we get things based on what we do with the freedom that we have and the freedom that we have is based on what we do with the opportunities in front of us to live in freedom.  

TruthOut:CJ Polychroniou & Henry A. Giroux: The Specter of Authoritarianism & the Future of the Left

Source:Free State MD

I hate it when people regardless of their political affiliation regard the American Left as the Left. Because the Left in America is not just one, but several different political factions with different political philosophies who are yes on the Left-Wing, but differ from each other. On the Left you have Liberals such as myself on the Center-Left. Then move a little further you have Franklin Roosevelt New Deal Progressives. 

And then you go to the Far-Left and you have Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats. Who are democratic in nature, but have a very large role for the central government in the economy similar to Scandinavia. And would like to see America adapt their political systems and form of government as well. So talking about the future of the Left as if it is one united faction that looks at most of the issues the same way is like looking at the future of three football teams each having different players and coaches and philosophies that are all different from each other as if they are all part of the same team. 

It simply doesn’t work, but what can you do is talk about the future of liberalism, progressivism and socialism in America and see where those political factions are headed. And where they are strong and weakness’s of each philosophy and its members. Which is what I’m interested in as a Liberal especially since America is moving in a liberal direction and now wanting both a great deal of personal and economic freedom.

Americans who want both economic and personal freedom, but who don’t quite see themselves as Libertarians, people who do want government out of the economy all together, but just don’t want government trying to run their lives for them from either an economic or personal perspective, is good news for Liberals and Liberal Democrats. This is bad news for Democrats who have both paternalistic leanings as they relate to both economic and personal issues. 

The so-called Progressive nanny statists in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party the Mike Bloomberg supporters. As well as bad news for those on the Right nanny statists when it comes to homosexuality, gambling and marijuana. It is also bad news for security hawks who may not be that far to the Left or Right, but have big government leanings when it comes to privacy and the War on Terror. People like Joe Lieberman and unfortunately even to a certain extent Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The future of liberal Leftists or the liberal Left is very good because that is where the country is moving. Americans who are not anti-government, but do not want government to try to run our lives for us. Just protect us from predators who would harm us. And help out the less-fortunate and empower them to be able to take care of themselves. 

George Carlin: Stupid Bullshit

Source:Free State MD

Imagine a world without stupidity, hey that's the title of this blog, well sort of, sometimes it helps to pay attention to what you are writing, but sometimes it can also cost you. Because you might think that "damn I'm a bad writer" and if you are wondering about the language? Well the title of this blog should've been a very big clue. Like the size of a dinosaur actually and if that's still not big enough for you, then you are part of the stupid bullshit problem in America that's holding us down.

But seriously imagine a world without stupid bullshit and as you are imagining that, imagine a world without Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Michael Moore, Melissa Harris-Perry, to name some examples. You think a world without stupid people, well that could be big problem. Because who would we have to make fun of anymore. I thought of that and decided its a chance worth risking because. Of all the stupidity that would be moved to Siberia or some place in hell like that. As the smart people are now in charge.

Imagine a world where we had politicians and other public officials who actually knew what the hell they were doing. We wouldn't go to war over bogus evidence because we would have a President and a National Security Council who actually knew how to read intelligence reports. We wouldn't have a fiscal cliff because we would have a President and a Congress who would be smart enough not to put the country through that. We wouldn't have a sequester because we wouldn't have a President and a Congress who were smart enough not to cut things across the board.

Meaning cutting parts of government that we need as much as waste in government. You might think a world without stupid people would be a problem. Because we would have a Congress that actually knew what the hell they were doing and start being very productive as passing a lot of legislation and as a Liberal I generally believe more laws that are passed, the less freedom that we would have. But think about it this way, no more stupid people in Congress, House or Senate. And replaced by people who actually know how to write good legislation.

A world without stupid people would be a world with a no stupid zone. To sort of borrow  Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone and Billy wouldn't be allowed in the no stupid zone because it would be a world without stupidity and things like intolerance, racism, homophobia. And other types of bigotry would be eliminated. Because all the stupid people would be rounded up because they wouldn't have the same constitutional rights as smart people. And the stupid people would be sent to Siberia or some place and the smart people would rule the world.

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart: Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech

Source:FreeState MD

I hate the term ‘campus Liberals’ to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, that they do Liberals. I'll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy.  Because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn't have any opposition. So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against c capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.

The reason the United States Constitution is one of if not the most liberal constitution’s in the world is because of all the freedom it guarantees us over our own lives. Which pisses the hell out of statists on the Left and Right who believe people tend to be stupid. And we need their version of big government to manage our lives for us. It doesn’t guarantee happiness, success or wealth, but provides us with the freedom to gain these things for ourselves in most cases. Our education system fails us in many ways to see that all Americans have the freedom to live in freedom. But under our Constitution we all have the constitutional rights to obtain freedom in America. Including the right to speak and express ourselves and write and organize and assemble. 

And we are guaranteed all a certain level of privacy as well and is starts with the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in it, you are not a Liberal, but perhaps a statist. Or fascist, or some type of collectivist that wants everyone to be the same with no individuality. Perhaps you have your foot so far up your ass that you think you're God with all of the answers about what people need to be happy and healthy in life. And that since you are God, you're not entitled to opposition and the freedom and individuality is not needed in your utopia. 

People with egos the size of planets, who lack a solid basis in reality and see themselves as imperfect, have no business trying to govern a free society. And without for people to be themselves, because you want a world where we all think the same and believe in the same things where dissent is not tolerated. So when I hear the term ‘campus Liberal’ and I hear about these so-called Liberals who believe in censoring people they disagree with because it may offend certain groups they believe need their protection, I believe the real meaning of Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by something else. 

I’m not sure if I should laugh or get angry as a Liberal when I hear so-called Liberals take such anti-liberal statist, collectivist and now fascist positions on things. Now not just having to do with the economy, but now our personal affairs and how we can express ourselves. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but instead represent the false negative stereotypes of liberalism. And real sorry class of people that live such sorry lives and don't have enough to keep themselves busy and make themselves happy. That minding their own business is simply not good enough, that they feel the need to mind other people's business as well. Especially in an era where Americans are finally seeing what liberalism really is. And not how it has been stereotyped and bashed for forty years.

Thom Hartmann: Dennis Prager: Leftism is a Different Approach to Americanism

Source:Free State MD

When did Dennis Prager become an expert on the American Left? The man is not even an expert on something that he claims to be which is a conservative. He’s at best a Religious Conservative who bases his political beliefs on his religious beliefs. Which is not conservative in a political sense. Dennis Prager is not Barry Goldwater, but probably has more in common with Rick Santorum, or Michelle Bachmann and perhaps other Tea Party Confederates. Who believe Barack Obama is an illegal alien and a Muslim-Socialist or something. Than he has in common with real Conservatives in America.

As far as leftism being a different approach to America. Of course we do not have a dominant political philosophy in America. No functioning liberal democracy does. Other than maybe liberal democracy itself. A society based on liberal values dealing with individual and constitutional rights and individual freedom. And that includes both personal and economic freedom. If that’s the case, then the Center-Left has won and Liberals have their liberal democracy known as America. But one question because it gets to what you mean about leftism. Because leftism is a collection of different leftist political philosophies going from liberalism on the Center-Left to Socialists and Communists and Anarchists on the Far-Left. So when you are talking about what you might call leftism, it helps whoever is listening to you to know what form of leftism are you talking about.

But also again go back to liberal democracy. There’s not just one Left version of what America is and what it should be, but multiple versions. Also there’s multiple versions or rightists views or rightism if you want to call it that, multiple rightists views going from a very fundamentalist religious theocratic view of what America is and what it should be. To more of a conservative or conservative libertarian view of what America is and what it should be. So of course there are different views on what America is and what it should be.

Dennis Prager and Thom Hartmann, Prager especially were not making news in this interview. By saying there is a Leftist view of America or a Rightist view of America. The only news here for anyone whose not already aware of this, is forget about the Left, because seriously when Dennis Prager gives these critiques about the Left let’s get real, because he’s talking about Liberals and what he believes liberalism is. Something and people he knows as little about as fish know how to drive trucks. Not an expert on anything related to the American Left.

The North Star: Dario Cancovic: Capitalist Oligarchy & Socialist Democracy

Source:Free State MD

If you want to know what Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists should be about at least in America, look no further than Senator Bernie Sanders. The only self-described Democratic Socialist in the United States Congress. But you could also look at former U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who was essentially redistricted out of office, or look at Ralph Nader. And why do I say this. Because these men aren’t great fans of capitalism, or private business and certainly not corporations. But understand economics well enough that you must have a certain level of private enterprise, to have a strong functioning economy.

Democratic Socialists in America understand economics well enough to know to have a functioning economy you must have at least a certain level of private enterprise. That there is indeed a limit to what government, even a Federal government can do for their people. Who need the freedom to succeed and be able to make a living for themselves and run business’s and so-fourth. Central-planning, when it comes to economics, tends not to work. And you need at least a certain level of competition to have the strongest economy possible. Where as many people as possible can succeed in it.

Now where democratic socialism comes in, is to make sure that the private sector is regulated. By the private sector, is taxed by the public sector to fund all sorts of things that Socialists believe that government should be doing for the people. But also so you have a strong enough economy to fund the centralized superstate. That Socialists, tend to be in favor of to provide the human services that people have to have in order to live well anywhere. Like healthcare, health insurance, education, public transportation, childcare and the regulators that the central state in the social democracy needs to make sure that private business are behaving and not abusing their workers and their consumers.

Europe, is full of social democracies like this. Especially in Scandinavia, but Britain is another good example. And these countries are functioning developed countries. But a big reason for that is because of their economies all have capitalist economic systems with strong private sectors to provide the central state with the revenue it needs to do the things for the people who Socialists want done.This is what democratic socialism is about in Europe and what it should be about in America. Which is a socialist form of capitalism. Which I know sounds strange, but it is true.

Because socialism, is a broader political philosophy, not just an economic system. But once you go past this and say capitalism is too risky and too many people get hurt. While a few do very well and start talking about nationalizing industries if not all industries. And having state take over the economic system, you don’t produce a socialist utopia. But you get an inefficient North Korea, or China from the 1970s. Or the old Soviet Union, a failed gigantic superstate trying to do too much for its people.

The Globalist: Uwe Bott: 'The Need For U.S. Constitutional Reform'

Source:Free State MD

I’ve blogged about this before, but the problems with America do not have to do with the United States Constitution. But the some of our so-called leaders and public officials who in some cases represent a hard fringe on the Far-Right, or Far-Left. Some represent the people who send them to Washington. And some actually represent their constituents pretty well. And deserve to be reelected over and over. And to say that we should change our Constitution just because there is precedent to do so, is not a reason.

It is like saying, “I had steak for dinner last night so I might as well have it again tonight.” Without looking at what else is available to eat that night and what would be the best thing to eat that night. And if you are going to do something drastic like changing the U.S. Constitution, the document that fathered liberal democracy in the world and what a lot of other democracies are built around with all the rights and freedom and what comes from that, as well as the checks and balances and separations of powers, you gotta have a hell of a reason to change such a great document. That has only been changed I believe twenty-seven times in two-hundred and thirty-seven years.

To say we must change the U.S. Constitution because we have a faction in one party in one chamber of one branch of government, essentially holding the rest of the government and I don’t like using this word unless I’m actually talking about real hostages, But holding the rest of the government back (for lack of a better word) unless they are able to kill a law that has already been settled by the U.S Supreme Court and a general election where President Obama is reelected to go along with most if not of the members of Congress in the House and Senate, is crazy. The answer is to vote out people who aren’t governing responsibly.

All of these Congressional Democrats who supported the Affordable Care Act, voted for it and even wrote parts of it. To change a Constitution, just because House Republicans don’t like one law, is not a good reason. What you do in that situation is what Democrats are doing now and hold them accountable. “These are the people who are preventing the Federal Government from reopening, because they’ve failed over and over to get a law killed that they hate.” And you keep pointing them out in public until their leadership gets the message. And says, “enough is enough. We aren’t going to let this fringe ruin us in the next election.” And you hold them accountable again at the ballot box in 2014 and get them replaced by responsible adults.

If you love social democracy so much, how about living in one for a while. And see if you like that more than America. And live somewhere where elections do not have consequences. And votes in a way do not matter. Because if a majority of people and that majority just might be one and they decide that current government in power is not popular, new elections can be called right away even if there is already a new government.

America, is a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal Democracy. And we are different and we have basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us. Like being abused my a majority and we have minority rights in this country. And just because 50.1% of the country thinks people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, doesn’t necessarily mean they get to rule over the 49.9% of the country that says, “how we live our own lives, is none of your damn business. So why don’t you butt the hell out.” As we are seeing with the gay rights cases that going through the court system including gay marriage. Where gay marriage bans are getting thrown out. Even gay marriage bans that were popular and voted for by the will of the people, so to speak.

Social democracy, is essentially rule by majority including the majority being able to rule over the minority. And being able to tell them how they can live their own lives. And that is just not how liberal democratic America rolls, so to speak. We say power to the individual and let them govern themselves as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people. And we have constitutional rights that can’t be taken away from us that protect our privacy. And our ability to live our own lives that can’t be taken away from us by a popular vote. And as I said before the problem with America, is not our Constitution. But some of our public officials who do not understand it who need to be kicked out of office.

The Young Turks: Martin Luther King Was a Republican?

Source:Free State MD

Pre-1964 or so I could see why Martin King was a Republican. Lets face it, the GOP was home to an overwhelming amount of African-Americans. Because of the Civil War, the freeing of the African slaves, Abraham Lincoln, etc. And then go up to the 1950s and 60s, which party is the civil rights party? The Republican Party and their Northern Progressives, especially in Congress. Who without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law doesn’t pass. Those laws would’ve not of passed in the House and Senate without Northern and Midwestern Progressive and Conservative Republicans. Like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen.

Ideologically except for civil rights, its hard to imagine how MLK would’ve fit into the Republican Party. They did have a progressive faction, but that was about civil rights, infrastructure, environmental protection and to a certain extent the safety net for people who truly needed it. But MLK was much more social democratic in nature, especially economically and when it came to civil rights and racial equality in general. And he was a dove and non-interventionist when it came to foreign policy and national security. And consistently spoke out against the size of the American defense budget and our involvement oversees. But without putting down American serviceman and women. Unlike the New Left of the late 1960s.

I can’t imagine Dr. King as a Republican or Democrat back then and perhaps not today. Today I could see him putting down Democrats as giving up on the poor and less-fortunate over things like Welfare to Work. And not doing enough to address the income gap and eliminate what he and others see as the Military Industrial Complex and Prison Industrial Complex. If Dr. King were a Democrat today, he would’ve been a member of the Progressive Caucus and perhaps one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, or creating his own social democratic movement. Or perhaps not a Democrat at all and a member of the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA. He was very Left on economic policy and when it came to national security as well, for a lot of center-left Democrats.

The Young Turks: Bill O’Reilly: 'The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.'

Source:Free State MD

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans, still not doing as well as Caucasians, regardless of ethnicity, or Asian-Americans. And that is still the challenge for this community. To come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.

Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King: I Have A Dream Speech - August 28, 1963

Source:Free State MD

Dr. King’s I Have a Dream Speech, is the crown jewel of the American civil rights movement. Because it laid out exactly what the vision of the movement is. That it is about jobs, justice and equal rights. Which is why you hear Dr. King quoting the United States Constitution that guarantees certain basic human rights to all Americans, not just European-Americans, or European-American men, but the entire country. All of us all Americans share these basic constitutional rights. Which was exactly what the American civil rights movement was about a fight for freedom.

Not too different what the American Revolution was about a fight for freedom as well and to have these constitutional rights. A big difference being that the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent from its start, to its core and to its end. And the fact that the Europeans who won the American Revolutionary War didn’t intend to include other Americans in the U.S. Constitution, the fact is they did when they said all men have the basic human rights. And Dr. King and his movement did was to say they are here to collect those rights. That the United States Government owes them under the U.S. Constitution.

I mean just look at the words of the I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King saying that he has a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here’s someone whose economic politics at least would make him a Democratic Socialist today and yet he’s calling for a color-blind and even race-blind society. Which would actually put him to the Left of a lot of people who claim to be his supporters today. Who are very race conscience and even have racial if not racist views towards Caucasians, even Jews and especially Southern Anglo-Saxons. People of British background.

The Birch Swinger's: Bobby Kennedy's Speech For Humanity

Source:Free State MD

Bobby Kennedy, laying out perfectly what it means to live in a liberal democracy. What individual liberty is about the right for Americans to live their own lives and live in freedom. Without government infringing on individual lives and their rights to live their own lives. All the freedom that Americans need is laid out for us in the United States Constitution. Starting with the First Amendment, with our right to speak, right to assemble, freedom of press, freedom to worship, or not worship.

The Second Amendment, that grants us the right to self-defense. The Fourth Amendment that protects our right to privacy. So government can’t interfere with how individual Americans live their own lives. Including our property rights, that protect our rights to ourselves, but also the property and wealth that we own. And then you go to the Equal Protection Clause, that protects our rights not to be discriminated based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. I’ve blogged about this before, but the United States Constitution is not the problem with America.

The problem with America, is our public officials on the Far-Left and Far-Right. Who don’t understand, agree with and ignore the Constitution. Who somehow view that their statist philosophy is more important than the Constitution. And in their narrow minds, gives them the right to impose their values on what it means to be an American. Over individuals and the Constitution itself. But as long government protects our Constitution, then they are also protecting all the freedom that we need to live and live well.

Research Channel: Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice

Source:Free State MD

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about. To see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

And had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party. That could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.

John Fugelsang On Fox & Friends

Source:Free State MD

It is true that liberalism is about the general welfare and caring about the welfare of others. And something I believe in as a Liberal. But it doesn’t take a Liberal, or a Saint to care about the welfare of others. Just a human being with a conscience. You shouldn’t have to be a Liberal to believe in those things. Just a good person who can see someone besides them self in the mirror, or in their dreams and lives. But liberalism is also about freedom of choice and economic and personal freedom. Rather than, “choice is dangerous that if you give people choice they tend to make the wrong decisions. So what we need is smart people in government making people’s choices for them.”

When you think of the words liberal and liberalism, think of liberty, liberalization, liberation, these are liberal words. People to the left of Liberals, like words like socialize, socialization, social, socialist, socialism even. These words, are well socialist. That is if you’re familiar with the English language. American, British, Canadian, whatever it might be. The Liberal, doesn’t tend to see people as stupid and big government as the savior. That big government going by the name Uncle Sam, will come and save the day by saving people from themselves. Stop them from not spending their money wisely and snatching it before they become successful and independent from big government. Or close someone’s mouth before they try to drink a soft drink, or eat a bag of potato chips, or say something that someone might see as offensive.

Liberalism, is not statist or anti-state, but pro-choice and not just on abortion, marijuana and homosexuality. But pro-choice generally speaking and about having an educated public with the freedom to make their own decisions. Rather than again having big government in the name of Uncle Sam, serving as the national parent for the country. Babysitter more like it, big enough to make sure people don’t make bad personal and economic mistakes with their own lives.

Liberals, are pro-choice, as it relates to both economic and personal issues. Not big government knowing best and deciding these issues for us based on who elects them. Which is what todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’, who are really Statists or Paternalists and not very liberal at all, John Fugelsang, case in point, whether it comes to economic, or personal freedom, do not seem to understand.

Thom Hartmann: What if There Really Was a Liberal Media?

Source:Free State MD

The fact is, we don’t have a liberal media, or a conservative media and certainly not a libertarian or socialist media. But what we do have is a media that is corporate owned, but by corporations, that represent all of these political factions. As well as public media and locally controlled local media, that is also publicly funded. And what corporate media does, is reports things that they believe are important. As well as what sells and if they are politically slanted, reports things they believe will hold their political side. And hurts the other sides. But since we live in a liberal democracy, a liberal society, a free society, we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. That allows for all of these different political factions, to have their own political news sources. That even allows someone like Thom Hartmann, on the Democratic Socialist left, to come from his vantage point and argue against corporate media. And in favor of what is publicly owned media and even state-run media. That would report the things that he and his political allies see as important. And perhaps ignore things that he believes aren’t in the public interest. And perhaps even censor reports that he disagrees with.

Thom Hartmann: Ronald Reagan, Billionaires & Privatization

Source:Free State MD

Where Thom Hartmann loses me, is when he says that making a lot of money is essentially a bad thing. That people with so much money and independence and not needing government to meet their basic financial needs, is a bad thing. And that we would be better off if we didn’t have people who were so financially independent. And you do that by taxing them so high and funding a welfare state to do that for them. And together as a country we would put all of our resources together into one pot with government deciding what we need to live well.

What I would do instead, is have an education and job training system, that empowers people to be as successful as possible. Which would be my alternative to this that allows for people to be successful as they possibly can. Even financially, but where they would still have to pay taxes based on what they consume from society. But not having them pay taxes so high just because they make a lot of money, which is different. I’ve said this before, but the problem with America is not that we have too many people who make a lot of money. But that we do not have enough. Which is why we have this income gap. And you close the income gap by encouraging more people to be successful in America.

If you want the democratic socialist superstate that Thom Hartmann and his allies advocate for as often as they can and go out of their way to say, “look at Sweden, they do things so much better than we do. We should be like them.” And have taxes so high on everyone to fund this superstate, someone still has to pay for that. You need an economy producing the tax revenue to fund the social welfare system that takes care of everyone. Instead of allowing for people to be able to take care of themselves and produce what they need for themselves. America is not Sweden. We’re not a country with a lot of land, but a very small population that is energy independent and is a net-exporter of energy. We’re huge country with a huge population. And because of that Americans need to be independent in order to live well. Which means you need an economic system that encourages economic freedom and independence.

AlterNet: Sean McElwee: 'The Case For Censoring Hate Speech'

Source:Free State MD

When you live in a liberal democracy take like America you should be aware that most of the things that you receive in life aren’t free. That you are one of today three-hundred twenty-million people and that we simply do not see things the same way. And all live in our different factions, or cultures, or cliques, however you want to put it. And what may sound like the truth to you, may sound like hate speech to someone else. But since we are a liberal democracy we all have the freedom of thought and speech. As long as we aren’t acting on these ideas that could physically hurt innocent people, or put them in danger.

The First Amendment like the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment and all our constitutional amendments are not absolute. Meaning they can be regulated, but not to the point that they limit individuals in how they live their own lives. For you can say whatever you want and think whatever you want. But you can’t order someone to be killed or physically assaulted without a price for that. You can own a gun in America, but you can’t use that gun to murder someone. We all have the right to privacy to protect law enforcement from breaking into our homes without just-cause. But if they have good reason to believe that someone’s health or life is in danger, they can break the door down to save that innocent person. And if they believe you are at fault, they can arrest you.

Since freedom is not free that means we have to put up with sometimes even things that we do not like, including speech. That you are free to live your own life. But so is everyone else whose not incarcerated. So they may do things or believe in things that may offend you and you have the right to disagree with them. And take another side, but you cannot stop them from what they are doing or what they believe in. Simply because you do not like what they believe in and what they said.

The First Amendment is a perfect example of that. As long as we aren’t inciting violence or threatening to hurt or kill innocent people. Or yelling fire in crowded spaces when that fire doesn’t exist, we are free to believe in and say what we think. Which is what makes our country a liberal democracy. Along with our other constitutional rights, as other countries are a little more statist and collectivist and put more authority and faith in the state over the individual.

As far as I’m concern if you do not believe in freedom of thought and speech and choice more broadly than just abortion, you are not a Liberal. You cannot be a Liberal if you do not believe in a high degree of personal freedom. When you put the state over the individual when it comes to personal freedom, you are not a Liberal, but more of a Statist. Even if you are pro-choice on abortion, marijuana and sexuality.

If your idea of liberalism is that it is the job of the state to protect people from having to see or hear things that may offend them, than you are not a Liberal. And sound more like a Religious-Conservative, or some other type of Statist, than you do a Liberal. And even if we were to outlaw hate speech, good luck with that with our first amendment, who would be the judge of what is and what isn’t hate speech. Partisan right and left-wing ideologues who see it as their job to eliminate speech they disagree with. While they are protecting the speech that they want. Which is what would happen in our current divided political system and culture.

Liberal democracy is all about freedom of speech, thought and expression. Again as long as we aren’t threatening to physically harm or kill people or inciting violence and yelling fire in public places. Which gives Americans the right to be, quite frankly assholes, as long as they aren’t physically threatening people. Which is why we have freedom of speech as well as hate crime laws. So people do not have the right to physically harm to kill others because they simply to not like them because they are bigots. One of the differences between living in a liberal democracy and some type of authoritarian state. Where you can be arrested for your own views.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: 'Harry Reid Full Of Cat Shit On Filibuster Nuclear Option'

Source:The Young Turks- No seriously, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid are the leaders of the U.S. Senate. Stop laughing! LOL

Source:FreeState MD 

“… Reid said he is prepared to use the “nuclear option” should Republicans not agree to approve the seven nominees. Current rules require 67 votes to change Senate rules, but the Nevada senator’s move would allow for the change in Senate filibuster procedure with a simple majority of 51 votes.

‘I’m going to go to the floor on Tuesday and do what I need to do so this doesn’t happen anymore,’ Reid said about the potential blocking of nominees.”*

Cenk Uygur breaks it down.” 

From The Young Turks 

I was watching a little of C-SPAN today before I went bike riding and went out and did what I needed to do. Why, because I’m a political junky who is interested in other things than the George Zimmerman case. And actually interested in important news that affects the country and that makes me un-American, then so be it.

C-SPAN was showing a debate in the U.S. Senate and for all of you Zimmerman trial junkies who are perhaps reading this blog by accident, thinking this was also about George Zimmerman, one turn off your TV. 

But C-SPAN is the network that covers the United States Congress and other current affairs events that are going on the country. And C-SPAN was showing an old Senate debate from 2005 when the then Senate Republican majority and the last one that they’ve had wanted to eliminate the filibuster on executive appointments. I was watching this old Senate debate and couldn’t, but help notice the hypocrisy on both sides.

If I had to guess there was more hypocrisy coming from the Republican side led by then Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell. Who is now of course the Minority Leader a job he’s had since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. And if I had to bet there’s probably more hypocrisy coming from Senate Republicans than Democrats. But if this were some crazy contest it would be a nail biter. I mean it would be like trying to decide which is redder: or the red apple or tomato? How would you and besides why would you care?

Neither side has been very responsible here. But guess what, this is Congress and why would the Senate be responsible anyway, they don’t work for a living. Neither does the House of Representatives in too many cases as well. But the same people led by Mitch McConnell today Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Jeff Sessions all members of the Judiciary Committee and then Senate Leader Bill Frist who first proposed the so-called nuclear-option, are now saying this is a power grab by Senate Democrats and they’re the ones being unfair.

“Sure, if we do this, we’re acting in the best interest of our party, I mean country. But when the other side does it, it is a complete abuse of power and unconstitutional”. I mean seriously anyone who is actually familiar with Congress, still wondering why they have a ten-percent approval rating? And who are these ten-percent anyway? Any of them not living in mental hospitals and not in comas. Perhaps whoever does these polls, counts dead people. You know, the way they vote in Illinois, Louisiana and New Jersey.

Where do Congress people come up with these labels? “We’re saying the Democratic obstructionism is out of control. And we need to do away with the filibuster? Are now saying that: “The filibuster is a check on absolute power in America”. On the Democratic side back in 2005 led by then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is now of course the Leader to go along with Senator Chuck Schumer who is also on the Judiciary Committee to go along with Senator Jack Reid, Senator Evan Bayh and others, those Democrats were saying eliminating the Senate filibuster would be a power grab.

“We’re saying that eliminating the filibuster would be an abuse of power and go against two-hundred years of Senate tradition and so-forth”. Wait, aren’t these Democrats supposed to be the Liberals, what do they care about tradition?

But now Senate Democrats are saying that: “The filibuster now represents ruling by minority. With one minority party in this case the Senate Republican Conference led by Mitch McConnell now running and having veto say on how the executive and judicial branches can now operate. When instead they are just supposed to be one voice and a minority voice at that”.

The point being that there’s enough hypocrisy and hypocritical people (to be nice) bullshit artists (to be accurate) here to form their own national club of bullshit artists. “We’re a club that creates and promotes bullshit across the country”. Apparently the agriculture sector is really struggling and then they need to create this national club, because they aren’t producing enough bullshit. Apparently Winnie the Bull is sick or something.

This club wouldn’t need any other members because all the available spaces would be filled by the United States Senate and an example of why ninety-percent of Americans dislike Congress. Because we have a lot of Senators like this. This whole Senate filibuster debate is all about “do what I say not what I do. Forget about my past record because this is what is important now and what I believe in”. They sound like your parents, right.

Which of course is the easiest near advantage that they can use against the other side and hit them as hard as they can with it until they lose power. Apparently unaware that will be used against them once they are out of power. Rather than doing what is best for the Senate and respecting the true role of the Senate as the upper chamber in Congress and its role in the Federal Government.

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: Time For Congress to Regulate The Supreme Court Clan!

Source:Free State MD

This is why I have a hard time respecting a lot of the arguments of todays so-called Progressives, that I call Social Democrats. Because they are so short-sided and go off when they see something they disagree with. And say, “because of this, we must blow up the system and do something different and completely change the ways we do things.” Where was this editorial three weeks ago, or a month ago and why does Thom Hartmann wait until a ruling on the Voting Rights Act from this week, to go off on the Supreme Court? There are short-sightedness on both the lets say further Left and further Right and not saying this only belongs on the Left. But judicial activism as Senator Lindsay Graham whose obviously not a Liberal, but as the Senator said at both Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing as well as the Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court hearing, to quote Senator Graham, “judicial activism are decisions made by courts that someone, or some people disagree with.”

The way our branches of government are supposed to work is that the legislative branch made up of our bicameral Congress of a Senate and House of Representatives, is supposed to do the legislating and oversight over the executive branch. Meaning the administration that the President leads and the judicial branch, our court system where the Supreme Court is our highest court, the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws that the President and Congress agree to. Both the House and Senate working with the President. And the judicial branch is supposed to interpret the laws what they mean and are they constitutional, or not and. Can overturn laws not based on whether they agree with them, or not, but whether they are constitutional, or not. So in Chief Justice Roberts case who personally disagreed with the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but ruled in favor of it, because he believed it was constitutional. Not that he agreed with the law which is a different thing.

The Supreme Court didn’t throw out the entire Voting Rights Act and rule that as unconstitutional. Which I believe would’ve been judicial activism. Because whether you agree with the law, or not it’s clearly constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. But what they did was throw out a section of it. That had to do with how the Federal Government regulates state voting laws. And gave Congress the option of rewriting it to fix that law. I disagree with that decision, but it’s not an overreach even though with the makeup of todays Congress. It looks that way with the Republican House probably not bothering to take that up.

The Nation: Opinion: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: An Oregon Trail to End Student Debt

The Nation: Opinion: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: An Oregon Trail to End Student Debt

Under the Oregon college affordability plan at least according to Katrina Vanden Heuvel, students in Oregon do not pay for any of their college education while in college. But pay three percent of their working income for the next twenty years after they graduate from college. So lets say someone averages seventy-thousand dollars more for the less for the first twenty years, after leaving college, which is not unrealistic, in other words one million four thousand dollars over a twenty year period, that comes out to them paying forty-two thousand dollars. The average cost of a college education right now is over hundred-thousand dollars. So that would leave colleges with a sixty-thousand dollar hole per college graduate. They simply can’t afford that. What we need to do instead is find a way to pay for that entire college education in an affordable way that makes higher education universal for all Americans.

What I’m in favor of is creating Universal College Savings Accounts or UCSA. Something I’ve already proposed on this blog. Which is for each kid that is born their parents would be able to set up an account for each student tax-free. That would be matched by their employer and perhaps even the Federal Government, or we could allow the states to set up their own systems and parents would have eighteen years to come up with the hundred-thousand dollars they would need to send each kid to college. Low-income parents, would get their contributions tax-free, but also would get that money back in a tax credit.

As well as expanding the Federal Government college academies like with the Armed Forces. And have an academy that covers Justice, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs to use as examples. That graduates of these academies would have to serve in these services after graduating like with the military. The fact is and I know Social Democrats hate hearing this, but there’s no such thing as a free education anywhere in the world. And not even in the most socialist of countries. We have to pay for our education one way or the other and have to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. In a way that those bills get paid, but also so everyone has access to higher education. Like we have access to K-12.