Russia Today: Breaking The Set With Abby Martin- 'Taxation Without Representation: The Untold History of Washington, DC'

Source:Russia Today- "RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian." From Wikipedia.

"Abby Martin then takes a look at the roots of the DC statehood movement, from the establishment of DC as the Federal City to the steps people can take to help support the movement today.

LIKE Breaking the Set:Facebook 

FOLLOW Abby Martin:Twitter." 

From Russia Today

Source:The New Democrat- The story of Washington, DC.

It is not often that I blog about no taxation without representation and perhaps I should blog about it more, because it is a clear issue as well as constitutional violation. To require people to pay for services and government that they have no say in when it comes to Congress in whether they should pay for those services, or should those services even exist in the first place. 

When I think of jurisdictions in America that are actually subjected to taxation without representation, Washington DC, where I live just outside of in Bethesda and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, come to mind real fast.

They both have official representation to Congress with each having a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. But neither even has a member in the Senate. Two jurisdictions and yet between the two of them they have two members of Congress. When the fifty states including Alaska and Hawaii, all have at least three members of Congress. They all have at least one representative in the House and two senators in the Senate. 

And yet Puerto Rico and Washington both pay Federal taxes and in Puerto Rico’s case, they don’t get money back from the taxes that they pay in services. For example, Puerto Rico, doesn’t get money from the Affordable Care Act for things like Medicaid. And have to find other ways to cover their uninsured. Even though they pay taxes on it. One example of why they’re bankrupt.

This is very simple: if you’re going to charge people in the form of taxes for government services, then they should get a say in that through voting directly, or having elected representatives vote for them with their constituents getting to decide if those representatives should continue representing them, or not. 

Washington is strange, at least compared with a lot of the country and how they’re physically set up is just one example. Physically, it’s a city and a very urban one at that. Big city in population with six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or, so in area of six-million people. One of the biggest cities and metro areas in the country. But the city itself is small in size even for a big city and yet they are forced to function as a city, county and state. For example, they have to run their own prison system while every other big city has a state that does that for them.

Puerto Rico, about the size of Connecticut in population without four-million people and New Jersey when it comes to land, essentially functions like a state. It has what would be called everywhere else a state government, with an executive, legislature and judiciary, with county and municipal governments as well. Except they don’t get the services that they pay for in taxes and don’t have representatives in Congress in either the House, or Senate, but they still have to pay the Federal Government for the services that the rest of the country receives. 

These are clear examples of taxation without representation, that Puerto Rico could fix on their own by either voting for independence and becoming their own country, or voting for statehood and becoming the 51st state in the United States. Washington DC, would be better off as part of another state, just because of its size. Like being part of Maryland, but the Federal Government would have to decide that themselves. 

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

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann & Thor Benson On Bernie Sanders

Source:Russia Today- Thom Hartmann & Thor Benson talking about Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"Thor Benson- Stop Calling Bernie Sanders a Socialist?"

Source:Russia Today

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I believe the best way to differentiate a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist from someone who is way Far-Left and a statist like a Communist, would be to put the two factions in separate groups. Democratic Socialists, which is the mainstream form of Socialists in the world and Marxists. Which is a fringe statist faction about as Far-Left as you get on that side of the spectrum. 

Bernie Sanders, is a Democratic Socialist. Fidel Castro, was a Marxist at least up until ten years, or so when Cuba started privatizing parts of their economy. But Fidel is still a Marxist on most issues like when it comes to personal freedom, which is he's against and individual rights.

What you get with Marxism is state-ownership of the entire economy, plus no individual rights. Individuals are essentially subjects, or children of the state with no rights of their own and not even allowed to think and speak for themselves. 

In a Marxist state, the truth is what the national state tells you it is. You work and live where the state says you do and I could go on, but I won't. 

In a social democracy the job of government is to see that everyone is taken care of, but not to try to do everything for them. Private economy, private ownership, property rights even, but a large central state and welfare state to make sure that no one has to go without anything that they need to live well.

Under a Bernie Sanders Administration, (lets say) the Federal Government would be bigger, taxes would be higher across the board perhaps, the roles of the states and localities would probably be smaller with more power when it comes to social welfare going to the Feds. But our Federal Republic would essentially still be the same. Federalism would still be alive in America with our three levels of government Federal, state and local. Schools, banks, energy companies, hospitals, wouldn't get nationalized and most of the economy, or at least a large percentage of it would still be in private hands. But taxes would be higher, even on the middle class and the Federal Government would have more responsibility to see to it that every American is taken care of.

Russia Today: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Pat Buchanan: 'The Greatest Comeback'

Source:Russia Today- author Patrick J. Buchanan talking to Thom Hartmann, about his book about Richard M. Nixon.

Source: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann- In Depth With Pat Buchanan: Richard Nixon's Greatest Comeback

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia 

"Patrick J. Buchanan, The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority talks to Thom." 

From Russia Today

"Legendary political commentator and New York Times best selling author Pat Buchanan came to the Richard Nixon Library on July 21 to discuss his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”  

Source:Nixon Foundation- author Patrick J. Buchanan, talking about his book about President Richard M. Nixon.

From the Nixon Foundation

I actually agree with Pat Buchanan over Thom Hartmann on this. And I disagree with Thom Hartmann on a lot because he is so far out in left field that it would be impossible to hit a home run out at that ballpark at least to left field. You would need a jet plane to fly the baseball and drop it over the wall at that ballpark. 

I agree with Pat Buchanan as much as it snows in Los Angeles. Because he is so far to the right that he makes the Islamic theocrats in Iran look moderate. But I probably agree with Hartmann more often than Buchanan on most civil liberties issues like the War on Drugs.

And this is why I agree with Buchanan here, because as much as the far-left likes to paint Richard Nixon as some type of right-wing authoritarian with the illegal bugging and other criminal activities inside of the White House, Dick Nixon was actually pretty moderate or progressive even as it related to civil rights issues. And even consumer and workers protections is it related to the environment and civil rights. 

As Mr. Buchanan said Mr. Nixon was way ahead of the Southern Caucus in the Democratic Party on civil and equal rights and supported all of the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 60s. And even supported affirmative action in the 1970s. 

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

RT: Video: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann: It's Time to Outlaw Billionaires

Thom Hartmann should change the name of his political segment "The Lone Liberal" to The Lone Socialist. The Lone Liberal segment on this show is where Thom Hartmann, the supposed Liberal, takes on at least two right-wingers in a debate but socialism is really what Mr. Hartmann is espousing.  He says that wealth is basically a bad thing and should be eliminated that so there are no longer extremes of income.

If you don't want Americans to be as productive as they can be and to enjoy the benefits of their productivity, then take away their incentive to be productive and successful. Taxing people at 100 percent of any income over a billion dollars or 90 percent over a million discourages our most productive people people from being productive.

Free Speech TV: Video: The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Jeffrey O'Hara: How Do We Stop Paying for Foods That Kill?

If we want to encourage people to eat healthy diets and take care of themselves, we have to change the Federal Government's farm policy to stop subsidizing junk food and soft drinks and to change our  Food Assistance programs so that low-income people can afford healthier diets.  We need to change the crop allotments of the farm subsidy programs, which were set many decades ago, to reduce or eliminate subsidies for animal feed crops and to shift those funds to crops that are more healthy for human consumption.  Food Assistance funds should not pay for junk food and drinks but should be targeted on  healthy foods and drinks.

This is a good example of how encouragement, or subsidization, of positive behavior, which has been the New Democratic approach to problem solving going back to the early 1990s or further, beats the paternalistic big government approach that says, "Dammit, these things aren't good for you so Big Brother isn't going to let you have them."

The encouragement or subsidization approach realizes the fundamental fact that telling someone that they shouldn't or can't do something that they've been doing, and enjoying, for as long as they can remember will not stop them from doing it.  But you can show them that there is a better way and give them financial incentives to improve their behavior.

Piers Morgan Tonight: Abby Martin Standing up Against Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Someone is finally stepping up to the fascist neoconservative Putin in and saying he is wrong to invade Ukraine. As far as Abby Martin taking on corporate media, guess what Russia Today is.  It is owned by the Russian Government, which could at any time pull people for disagreeing with them or, in Russia, arrest them for disagreeing with them.  Very little independent media in the Russian Federation!

Russia Today: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann- 'Time for White Americans to Wake the Hell Up'

Source:Russia Today- from Thom Hartmann's RT program.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian federal tax budget.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"It's time for white Americans to wake up - and help heal the wounds caused by 400 years of slavery and discrimination in our country." 

From Thom Hartmann

What Thom Hartmann doesn't mention that is some of the stereotypes of the African-American community gets positive play in the hip-hop community, a community that obviously has huge influence over the African-American community when it comes to music, movies, lifestyle, clothing, and I could go on but I'll spare you. But also it has to do with what hip-hoppers like to call Thug Life or Gangsta Life, and young African-American men especially see this and decide that this is how they want to be and to be seen and tend to be successful at achieving that.

Mr. Hartmann is not making any news here because, of course, people are people and just a small percentage of people of all races, not just Caucasians, see people as members of groups that should be avoided. 

We should all just be treated as individuals and not members of groups, which is one of my core values as a liberal. But no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to racism and having racist views and no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to the effects of being looked at stereotypically.

The Far-Left doesn't seem to understand that no one race in America has a monopoly when it comes to stereotyping one race of people. I mean, if you want to use the cab driver analogy when it comes to African-American men, with Black men, let's say not being able to get a cab because of their skin color, well guess what, not all cab drivers, in case you are not that experienced with cabs, are Caucasian and a lot of them are South Asian or Native African, such as Ethiopian, or Middle Eastern, and African-American, who are turned down for cabs by people of various races.

And it's not just one race of people who are guilty of stereotyping and it is not just racial minorities who are victims of racial stereotyping. Caucasians get stereotyped, especially if they are from the South or rural America, as being bigots across the board by people not from their culture and lifestyle. Or they get stereotyped as Ivy League or rich and they are stereotyped by people from the media and even from their own race.

Latino is not a race, but Latino men and women in this group are stereotyped as illegal immigrants and people on welfare are stereotyped as as car thieves. And not just by Caucasians and Asians, Orientals especially are stereotyped as being brilliant or intellectual and not being American, who can't speak English, and again not just by Caucasians. 

So racial profiling and racism are all around us, practiced by all sorts of Americans and are something in America that the Far-Left needs to understand if they are truly interested in racial equality.  Stereotyping by perceived good qualities may be just as negative as stereotyping by perceived bad qualities.

RT: Breaking The Set- Socialist in Seattle

Socialism has a future in the United States, but it is the Bernie Sanders democratic socialism. That combines a very large centralized federal welfare state with very high taxes to finance it. To go along with capitalism meaning private enterprise to finance the socialist welfare state. Not saying that type of economic system is ever coming to America for lots of reasons. And I’m certainly not in favor of that type of economic system. But that type of Socialist could get elected in Washington State, New England and other places in the country.

Marxist socialism for all sorts of reason is all but dead outside of the Communist Republic of Korea. Which would be North Korea for all sorts of reasons mainly because it doesn’t work. Governments have a hard enough time especially national governments managing their own services and agencies. Let alone trying to run an entire economy for an entire country especially a big country. Which is why China, India and Iran moved away from that system a long time ago.

What Socialists should be saying is that they are not here to take your property away from you. Business’s or private homes, but to make sure that everyone has the access to what they need to live well in life. And that government needs to provide some, but not all of these services so that everyone can do well in the country. And who you’re were born to and your parents economic levels shouldn’t be the only factors in how well people do in life.

The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann: Louis Michael Seidman: Should We Give Up on The Constitution?

Source:Russia Today.

Source:Russia Today

Just from the outset, this is a pipe dream of the Far-Left who want to make the Federal Government a hell of a lot bigger so they can transform the country into a socialist collectivist society. Where they can decide what is good for us or what a majority can decide what is good for us like in a real majoritarian social democracy. Where big issues tend to be decided based on referendum. This will never happen because as a country we have never had so much faith in our government especially at the federal level. Where we would be willing to give them the keys to the national car. And say, “we now leave everything up to you without anything to stop you.”

I have some questions that are really targeting to let’s say 85-90 percent of the country who thinks this is a crazy idea.

1. Do we really want a country where free speech and assembly are not guaranteed?

2. Do we really want a country where we no longer have a constitutional right to defend ourselves?

3. Do we really want a country where our privacy and property rights aren’t guaranteed? Where government essentially owns everything and could come into our homes at will?

4. Do we really want a country without an Equal Protection Clause? Where we could be discriminated against based on race or ethnicity just to use as a couple of examples?

These are just some of the things that our United States Constitution guarantees us under law. The problem with our country is not our Constitution, but big government politicians on the Far-left and Far-Right who do not agree with it. So they do not enforce it. Which would be legal for them if you throw out the Constitution. And they would be able to write laws as they see fit. Without a Constitution to at least slow them down when they go too far, or just plain stop them.

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.

Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: How Big Should Government Be?

Source:Free State MD

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education. Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The United Kingdom use to have a nationalized healthcare system. Both health insurance and health care delivery. Before they started privatizing parts of their health care system and allowing for some private hospitals and health insurers. And my other question for Thom would be does he want to nationalize the education system in America as well? I agree with Thom Hartmann when it comes to regulation, to make sure we are consuming safe products. That won’t kill us, at least instantly, but that’s different from prohibition. My points about regulations would be about cars, toys, food inspection, so we do not get poisoned things that we have to use everyday. Or do use everyday, so these products are as safe as possible, even if they aren’t good for us. Like food to use as an example, but that we do not get poisoned from eating a meal or something.

And that we work under safe working conditions, just as long as the public sector isn’t trying to run the private sector and vice-versa. They both have different roles and both are needed for a country to become and remain a developed country. We agree that government shouldn’t be running the economy or running industries and I would add, or nationalizing any industries. Including education and healthcare. So the question for me at least not asking myself this question since I already know the answer as far as where I come down, is what should government be doing at all levels, not just at the Federal level? And it first starts with the United States Constitution and what authority does government at all levels have to do in this country.

And once you’ve figured that out, you meaning anyone, then it becomes about what should government be doing with the constitutional authority that it has. So for example, for me it starts with what government shouldn’t be doing. Because I believe there’s more that government shouldn’t be doing than what it should. So to me big government, is government that does too much trying to do for the people what they can do for themselves. Basically so I do not want government trying to run our lives and making decisions for us that we can do for ourselves. Like where we can send our kids to school, or what we can say to each other, as long as we aren’t libeling people or inciting riots. Or giving out classified information, that sort of thing. Or telling us what we can and can’t do with our own lives.

And after we cover what government shouldn’t be doing, then it becomes about what the states and locals should be doing. A bottom up approach rather, in a classically liberal, but still liberal direction. Rather than a top down heavy-handed socialist, or dictatorial direction. So I want the states and localities to run the things that they should be running basically that we do not need a national approach to be running. Things like education and public assistance, social insurance, to use as examples. I would block-grant most if not all the Federal social insurance programs to the states and localities. And let the Feds serve as regulators to see what’s working and that basic national standards are being met. And then leave the rest as far as what government should be doing for the Feds.

Like protecting us from foreign invaders, terrorists, national criminals in conjunction with the states and localities, protecting our borders, overall immigration policy, national-security, foreign policy. And also serve as a funding source in areas like education and job-training. So everyone has access to a quality education in America, including job training for low-income and low-skilled workers in this country. So they can live in freedom as well. So overall the Federal Government of my dreams would be smaller than the Federal Government of today. Including in defense and I do not want the U.S. Government trying to run the lives of Americans, or trying to police the world as well.

But I would invest more in infrastructure and rebuild this country, just not have the Federal Government run that. But approve a lot more new infrastructure-projects that need to be fixed, or built and invest more in like I said education and job training. Again, just not running those things, so that all Americans have access to a quality education in life. No matter how they start out, or the income level of their parents. But also so low-income low-skilled parents, can get themselves the skills that they need to live in freedom in life as well. And not be dependent on government for their economic survival, no matter the level of government.

When I blog about limited government, I’m actually blogging about limited government. Surprise surprise, it sounds too simple that it must be true. But I’m not blogging about what Libertarians would call small government. That I just want government limited to doing what we need it to do. Not trying to run our lives from an economic, or personal point of view. Or trying to tell us what we can do with our own lives, but there to do for us to serve us by doing the things that individuals can’t do for themselves.

Austin Peterson: Anarchism, Socialism & Libertarianism Summit

Source:FreeState Now

They are both very diverse political philosophies and take libertarianism to use as an example. Where the basic idea of libertarianism is that you combine personal with economic freedom as long as individuals aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. But that government is there to protect us from invaders, terrorists and criminals. Thats the basic idea of libertarianism. But then there’s also anarcho-libertarianism, which is borderline anarchism if not anarchism all together. Where Anarcho-Libertarians basically have no role for government in society. And are even interested in privatizing things like prisons, fire departments and law enforcement to use as examples.

Socialism, another diverse political philosophy where you have Socialist-Libertarians like Noam Chomsky. Socialist-Liberals like Ralph Nader and people with this philosophy believe in personal freedom like Libertarians, but that government needs to be there to sure that economic wealth is distributed equally in society and where no one is rich, or poor. But then there are Socialists who are statist across the board and not only want to prevent people from becoming what they would call too wealthy and not poor at all.

But that government also has a role to protect people from getting hurt and even protecting us from ourselves. And making bad decisions with their own lives. Like prohibition, which is definitely a progressive idea. The whole junk food and soft drinks ban, the War on Drugs to use as examples, are all progressive ideas. And people like this I would call Progressive-Socialists, or Progressive-Paternalists. People who are socialist on economic policy, but also Statist on some key personal choice issues.

Progressive-Paternalists, want to use government to control what people can eat, drink and smoke to use as examples. You also have Marxists-Socialists, people who believe in eliminating capitalism and the private sector all together. Where the government would own the economy all around on behalf of the people. And then you have Socialists who believe in both capitalism, but that is highly regulated and taxed to finance a large welfare state. So with Libertarians we would get a lot less government in society. And with Socialists a lot more government especially as it relates to the economy.

Russia Today: Alex Wahl: Alex Chance-Porn Stars Choose The Next U.S. President

Source:The Daily Journal

As the so-called Family Values Party heads to the adult entertainment capital of America, which is Tampa, Florida where the Grand Old Party meaning the Republican Party will hold their convention, (you can have all sorts of fun with this) I thought it would be fun to look at how the so-called porn industry could affect Mitt Romney and his potential Republican vice presidential candidates. I guess we can drop Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann, from the list. Since they all support a constitutional amendment to outlaw pornography. And since the GOP is the Family Values Party, they’re not going to nominate someone for vice president who would outlaw porn. And risk getting kicked out of Tampa. And being forced to hold their convention in West Virginia, or somewhere else in the Bible Belt where they would all have to rent helicopters to get to the convention. Because there aren’t enough roads.

One of my favorite jokes is that you would have better luck finding a prostitute, or some other adult entertainer at a Southern Baptist Convention, then you would see the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series, or Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl. But the problem with that joke is the Republican Party is in Tampa this year and there might be all sorts of adult entertainers at their convention looking for potential clients and showing them a whole new way of living. Like what its like checking out women other than your wife, (in public) or what its like to have sex, (with someone other than your wife) that not all women wear long dresses everywhere they go and aren’t afraid to show their legs and even butts in public. Tampa, is about as Bible Belt and Christian-Right of a city as Seattle is in the Southeast. A very friendly individualistic of a city where people are free to be themselves.

Its funny enough that today’s modern Republican Party is in Tampa in the first place. I guess they’ll be in Sin City Las Vegas in 2016, where you’ll have thousands of Republicans who perhaps have never seen a casino on TV before let alone actually been to one. If an adult entertainer endorses Mitt Romney for president in Tampa, it could cost Mitt twenty points in the GOP, even if his approval rating goes up with the rest of the country. And you may see Mitt trying to convince people that he was never endorsed by an adult entertainer, or the person had him confused with another Mitt Romney. Like the Mitt Romney from 2002, or 1994. I mean a party where you got a certain percentage of its members, maybe 1/3 who believe pornography should be illegal everywhere in the country, having their convention in the porn capital of the country, there’s a lot that’s ironic about this picture.

Russia Today: Public Housing in America

Source:FreeState Now

When public housing became part of the LBJ Great Society in the late 1960s, it was created with the best intentions in the world to give low-income people, who otherwise would not have been able to afford a home, a place to stay, and to that extent public housing has been very successful in America and has prevented millions of people and families from being homeless and otherwise putting pressure on our already overcrowded private homeless shelters.

But public housing in America has had major drawbacks as well, forcing low-income people to live on top of each other in rundown housing projects in rundown neighborhoods in highly impoverished areas with high crime rates, forcing people to live in ghettos with no hope of making a better life for themselves and their families and forcing their children to attend bad schools and face the same future as their parents, even if they managed to finish school. 

I would like to literally tear down every rotten housing project in America, move the residents out to better homes, and then proceed to tear down the housing projects in every rundown neighborhood in America and rebuild those properties to attract businesses for job creation--something constructive. 

Then I would like to transform the current public housing authorities in America into an independent nonprofit national organization whose sole purpose would be to provide affordable housing to low-income people. This organization would be independent of the Federal Government, again with its own management, board of directors, finances, and budget. 

Then I would like to stop all housing projects from being built in bad neighborhoods and give low- income people the option of living in middle class neighborhoods, where all of the new housing projects would be built.  They would be decent places to live, with the infrastructure of a decent neighborhood, schools, grocery stores, parks, etc. so low-income and their families could experience something other then poverty, crime, and rotten schools. 

Since this national organization for public housing would no longer be operated by the Federal, State, or local governments, it would need its own revenue source. I would finance this by its residents and their employers each chipping in, let's say, 50% of the residents'  welfare payments, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or Social Security, and then be eligible for a housing voucher to cover the other part of their housing costs. People who receive housing assistance wouldn't have to live in public housing but could use that money to live in private housing but be responsible for the costs that their housing assistance doesn't cover. 

We need to take a better look at how we help people in poverty and actually do what's in their best interest instead of just writing checks and hoping their problems go away.  We need to use public assistance to empower people to improve their lives and become self-sufficient so they no longer need public assistance.