Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics'

Source:Crash Course- American federalism.

"In which Craig Benzine teaches you about federalism, or the idea that in the United States, power is divided between the national government and the 50 state governments. Craig will teach you about how federalism has evolved over the history of the US, and what powers are given to the federal government, and what stuff the states control on their own. And he punches an eagle, which may not surprise you at all." 

From Crash Course

One of the things that makes America os unique and I at least would argue better in so many ways is how our diverse and large we are. And because of that we don’t have a top-down authoritarian centralized approach to government. 

We couldn’t and still be a liberal democracy because we’re so big. A unitarian government simply wouldn’t work here, because you would see states like Florida, Texas, California, Alaska, Hawaii and others move away from America and create their own countries. Because you have one government in Washington that’s thousands of miles away from most of the country telling other states and localities how to educate their kids, how to police their streets, manage their safety nets, etc. Even though the Feds don’t know the people they’re ordering around and don’t know their communities.

I’m both a Liberal and a Federalist which would almost sound like an Oxymoron to people who aren’t familiar with liberalism and see it as some socialistic, big government ideology. But Liberals created our federalist system and our Constitution. 

I’m a Liberal-Federalist which means I believe the states and localities have the right to manage their own domestic affairs just as long as they’re within in the Constitution. So if they decided to segregate their schools by race with the good schools left for one race of people, with everyone else going to the failing schools, that would obviously be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. But if they decided to have both public schools and subsidize private schools for low-income students, that would be their right. Since that’s certainly constitutional.

Federalism, is not anti-government: you still need a military, you still need Federal law enforcement to deal with interstate crime and regulatory state to regulate interstate commerce, a national currency, foreign policy, national security state, etc. 

The Federal Government obviously has to collect revenue to pay for their limited, but important functions. But you don’t need a Federal Welfare program, you don’t need a Federal health insurance program even for the poor and seniors. You don’t need Federal Unemployment Insurance. You don’t need a Federal Department of Education. You don’t need Federal Public Housing and Retirement Insurance. 

We need social insurance programs like this, but they should be run by the states with a Federal basic standards to ensure that these programs actually serve the people who are eligible for them. But with the state having the resources and authority to run them.

Not talking about anti-government or creating some voluntarist society. But limiting the Federal Government simply to exactly what we need it to do with the resources to perform those missions. And having the states and localities simply run their own affairs. Leaving the Feds to do only what we need it to do including seeing that these programs are run as they were designed, but no longer responsible for running them. 

In Washington this would be called a block grant system: turn these vital and important safety net programs, including job training over to the states. With the states responsible for running them properly and then let's see what works where and why and what doesn’t work. And allow for our states to be laboratories for liberal democracy. With an effective limited government to do only what we need it do and do it very well.

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

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

AlterNet: Alexandra Rosenmann- Why Noam Chomsky Won't Call Himself a Modern-Day Liberal

AlterNet: Alexandra Rosenmann- Why Noam Chomsky Won't Call Himself a Modern-Day Liberal

I’ve blogged a lot about Noam Chomsky over the last five years or so, because I find him to be absolutely fascinating as well as very intelligent. Even though we don’t tend to agree economic policy, foreign policy, history, America even, but he’s someone whose very consistent with his own libertarian socialist politics. Which is my point here. He’s one of the few people on the New-Left, (if that makes happier instead of Far-Left) but he’s one of the few people on that side who actually owns his own politics. While people who have a lot in common with him politically like former Representative Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, still call themselves a Progressive, or Liberal (which gets my heart rate up when I hear that). Professor Chomsky says he’s a Libertarian-Socialist and has no problem with being called a Socialist.

What is a Libertarian-Socialist? You take libertarianism or liberalism on social and personal freedom issues and combine that with a socialist economic policy. As well as a dovish-isolationist foreign and national security policy. Which puts him to the left on really all social issues of the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives, as well as so-called Progressive-Humanists. Who think they know better than anyone else what people should think and say and even think big government should decide what people should eat, drink, smoke, even what entertainment what we watch. These Progressives are supposed to be on the Left, but they have more in common with the Christian-Right when it comes to a lot of Freedom of Choice issues and gambling is another example of that. As well as being big government on economic policy. Noam Chomsky is a hard-core Liberal on social issues and against big government there.

Professor Chomsky, described his own politics as Libertarian-Socialist as early as 1977 in a BBC News interview. And Bernie Sanders is probably the closest thing we have to someone who is that liberal on social issues today and doesn’t want big government interfering there short of stepping in when people get hurt. But is a Democratic Socialist on economic policy. High taxes across the board, in exchange with a lot of Welfare subsidies. With a very limited military and foreign policy. There’s a lot for Liberals such as myself when it comes to social issues, Libertarians when it comes to social issues and Progressives and Democratic Socialists, when it comes to economic policy, to like about Noam Chomsky. And at least respect him in other areas. Because even though he’s someone who wants a big government involved in the economy, he believes in small government when it comes to social issues and civil liberties.

Skep Torr: The Dark Side Of Political Correctness

Source:The Daily Review

The dark side of political correctness, where should I start? The two most offensive aspects I find about it are the hypocrisy and the pure fascism of it. Apparently in PC World minorities are entitled not to be offended even if the critic is correct with everything they’re saying. But majorities are essentially free speech targets. In PC World you would almost be expected to make fun of criticize Caucasians, especially if they’re on the right. What the New-Left calls white people or the man. But even if you’re correct in how you criticize anyone else you’re somehow a bigot. Someone is bigoted to point out the horrible human rights record of Saudi Arabia when it comes to women especially. Because Saudis are Arab and Muslim. Even though they have a horrible human rights record.

But if you make fun of and criticize Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they make bigoted statements towards women and gays, you’re somehow progressive, because you’re speaking the truth. Even though SASP’s are no more bigoted towards gays and women as Islamists. And then the fascist element if it. This idea that you can’t say something, because it might offend someone else even if you’re correct in what you’re saying and you especially can’t do this in college. Perhaps the first place where you want free expression and ideas to be heard so people can learn about them and learn how to think for themselves. I mean where do political correctness warriors think they live? It can’t be Communist Cuba where they wouldn’t be allowed to hold these PC rallies without government permission. They live in America where we all have a guaranteed right to free speech.

The alternative to political correctness is education and I mean real education. Not someone standing up in front of a class and telling people how to think, but instead sharing actual facts and real information and different philosophies out there and then letting the students figure out what this all means and what’s good and bad based on what they have learned. And instead of banning language because it might offend someone you use criticism that is correct to improve yourself. And use language and thought that’s simply wrong as an opportunity to point out how ignorant the commentator is. Instead of trying to shut someone up simply for being stupid and expressing themselves. Instead educate them on their own stupidity and see if they’re smart enough to learn and improve themselves. But fascism is never the answer in a liberal democratic free society.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel Interviewing U.S. Senator Rand Paul: 'Liberty vs Security'

Source:Liberty Pen- without liberty, there is no security and vice-versa.

"Rand Paul joins John to discuss liberty vs security issues with ISIS and the Syrian refugees. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

One of my favorite Milton Friedman quotes is, "without liberty there is no security." As well as without security there is no liberty, because then there would just be chaos. But I hate this neoconservative argument that somehow individual freedom and privacy threatens security, because somehow it gives people freedom to threaten the state and the security of the people. 

You need a limited government and national security state protecting the people from predators foreign and domestic. But you do that by targeting criminals and terrorists. Not treating everyone as terrorists and eliminating the guaranteed Right to Privacy in America and suggesting that everyone is a potential suspect until proven otherwise. Even in this so-called War on Terror that Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution is still there and still relevant.

There's no such thing as individual freedom and limited government in a national police state. Whether it is in the Middle East or Russia or North Korea or what Christian-Nationalists want in America. But with limited government even the national security state in that government is held accountable and is limited under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as how it can regulate society and what it can do and for the people. 

You eliminate the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights and you not only eliminate limited government in what's supposed to be a liberal democracy, but you eliminate individual freedom. Especially personal freedom and the Right to Privacy. 

So when Congress and the President pushes anti-terrorism laws, they still have to comply with the U.S. Constitution, or they're simply unconstitutional and should be thrown out. 

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

Slate Magazine: Karina Longworth: The Hollywood Ten Paid The Price For Refusing to Answer The $64 Question

Source:The Daily Review

I blog about political correctness and what I at least see as fascism on a regular basis. Perhaps one piece a week, because its such an important issue today with free speech coming under assault practically everywhere in America and even on college campus’ where free speech needs to be at it’s strongest so young people can learn and share views with each other and get as good of an education as possible. But just like Caucasian-Americans don’t own a monopoly on racism and other forms of bigotry in America, the Far-Left doesn’t own a monopoly on political correctness and fascism. Back in the late 1940s and really through the 1950s Americans were under attack from the Far-Right in this country for simply believing what they believed and who they associated with.

It started in Congress in 1947 with the House of Representatives starting an investigation with their so-called Un-American Activities Committee doing an investigation about Communists in Hollywood. And sure there were Socialists in Hollywood and perhaps even Communists. But so what. They were also Americans who went to work everyday producing films and other entertainment that had nothing to do with the Cold War and certainly were not on the side of Russia and other Communists states back then. At least in the sense of propping them up and trying to make them look better than they actually were. They were Hollywood employees. Actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, who simply went to work everyday producing a lot of good films that people wanted to see and paid a lot of money to see. Who ideologically were Socialists who backed Far-Left candidates and causes in America.

The Far-Right and right-wing version of political correctness which is a form of fascism is that people who don’t share their view of the world and what America should be and be about and don’t agree with them ideologically, are somehow Un-American. And not deserving of the same constitutional rights as other Americans. Meaning the right-wing and especially Neoconservative fascists on the Far-Right who see Senator Joe McCarthy as a hero and even speak highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin today for his crackdowns on opposition media in Russia and homosexuality in Russia. And are now backing Donald Trump for president. People like Far-Right columnist and author Ann Coulter. Who is the real-life Donald Trump who actually believes what The Donald says. Even if Trump doesn’t believe his own propaganda.

In 1947 you had the House call members of the so-called Hollywood Ten to testify in front of the Un-American Activities Committee and asked what would normally be seen as an innocent question. “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” The problem is they were asked to do this under oath and on live national TV. When broadcast news was still an infant. With the whole world (at least in America especially in Hollywood) listening. With Hollywood executives and studio heads being anti-Communist and not able to afford to be associated with Communists or anyone else on the Far-Left in America. With these Hollywood employees having a choice to either plead the fifth and look very suspicious, or admit to being Socialists and risk not being able to work again ever in Hollywood. Even though most of them had kids to take care of and needed to work and earn a living.

The Hollywood Ten weren’t asked if they had committed any crimes or even knew any criminals. Or even associated with organize criminals and mobsters. They were put on trial for their political beliefs. They were considered guilty by association and communist political beliefs. Without any trial even though every American is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free speech and the constitutional right to believe whatever they want to. Whatever you think of political correctness on many of our college campus’ right now that is done by private individuals. People getting together in trying to eliminate and censor ideas that they not only disagree with, but find offensive. What happened to the Hollywood Ten back in the 1940s and 1950s was a form of state-fascism. American citizens put on trial simply for their political views.

The Boston Globe: Jeff Jacoby: 'If Supreme Court Had Term Limits, Confirmations Wouldn't be So Bloody'

The Boston Globe: Opinion- Jeff Jacoby- If Supreme Court Had Term Limits, Confirmations Wouldn't be So Bloody

For the life of me I don’t understand why two of the most important jobs in America which is being a U.S. Justice and public school teacher, don’t have to deal with the same accountability and in some cases no accountability as everyone else in America. Why is it that U.S. Justice’s and public school teachers don’t have to prove they deserve to keep their jobs and are doing a good job. And have to make a case to their superior that they should continue working in that same position. With their superior saying that they either deserve to keep their job, or perhaps should be released, be promoted, given a raise, or a pay cut.

But that is how the U.S. Supreme Court and the broader Federal judiciary operates. They’re given lifetime appointments and once appointed they can only be removed through impeachment and conviction by Congress. And only through serious ethical and criminal violations. Not for simply doing a bad job. And where I agree with Jeff Jacoby (for perhaps the first time in my life) is that is a big problem. And why Congress is so partisan right now, especially in the Senate where the two parties have to work together just to run the place properly. Because the Supreme Court and judiciary is always in play every two years during the Congressional elections with both parties fighting to win back or keep control of the Senate. To appoint or block Federal judicial appointments.

My other issue with the U.S. Supreme Court is the simple size of it. We’re a huge country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, with fifty states and some states that would make big countries. Like Alaska, California, Texas and Montana. And yet we only have nine U.S. Justice’s including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And they have all of this power and can literally throw out laws passed by Congress and executive orders from the President with their judicial review that has become very political. And in many cases looks like laws get thrown out, because 5-9 Justice’s disagree with the laws. Instead of ruling on the constitutionality of them. Even though the Supreme Court has no one to answer to and has practically hundred-percent job security. Short of committing ethical or criminal violations.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress gets regulate the size and scope of the Supreme Court and broader judiciary. There’s no set limits for how large or small the court should be. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to reform the court. We need to start holding U.S. Justice’s accountable for their decisions. I’m not talking about making it democratic, but simply accountable. We need to end lifetime appointments and have Justice’s come up for renomination after their terms are up. And let the President decide if that Justice should be reappointed or not. With the Senate deciding on that reconfirmation. Or weighing in on a new appointment for that seat from a new nominee. And then expand the court to 50-52. One Justice for each state so the whole country can be represented on it.

The old phrase ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, could have been written for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is too important of an institution for it to be unaccountable in a country this large, free, democratic and important. U.S. Justice’s and Judges in general, should have to prove their qualifications and job performance on their job just like most if not all Americans. (Except for public employees. Ha, ha!) And you do this by holding them accountable for their judgment and expanding the court so more Americans are represented there. Not with a vote, but knowing that someone who comes from their state is up there representing them and defending the U.S. Constitution. And will need to do a good job in order to keep it.

The Rubin Report: Lalo Dagach and Dave Rubin: Regressives, Religion, and Politics

Source:The Daily Review 

Just to respond to Lalo Dagach’s question about what should Liberals do (and I mean real Liberals) when the question is about what should be done when it’s a question of tolerance or standing up for liberal values. Like equal rights and women being treated equally and not worst under law. The answer to that is pretty easy. The Liberal always stands up for liberal values. Liberal values mean nothing when Liberals don’t stand up for them.

Even if that means telling people that they’re wrong and they have real serious regressive faults. Where a lot of people and in this case women, are hurt from a result of religious authoritarianism in the Middle East. When pointing out the real faults of people becomes a form of bigotry, then we’re in real trouble. You might as well move to North Korean and oh by the way, leave all your personal-decision making and individualism there, because that won’t be tolerated there. If you want to live in a place where the truth doesn’t matter, because someone might be offended by it.

Nothing bigoted about the truth. Especially when the truth is negative, because without negative truth and facts we would never be able to improve ourselves. Because someone is always giving up medals for showing up and participating when life is so much more than that and being there is just the beginning. When instead of getting participation medals you need a verbal slap in the face. And for someone to tell us, ‘you fucked up buddy and this is where you come up short and this is what you should’ve been doing all along instead.’

Now these Far-Left Commie Regressive’s who has this Che Guevara notion or wherever the hell they got it that says putting down or critiquing non-Caucasian-Christians, especially Anglo-Saxon Christians, is a form of bigotry even when the critic is correct, what are they smoking? And can I get some of that when I need to take a break from reality? What’s progressive about putting now Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they show bigotry against women and gays, but you ignore the exact same things that happen in the Middle East and in some cases even worst. Like being put to death simply for being gay and sometimes for not being a Muslin.

I’ve argued this before, but Liberals believe in liberal values. I know, that’s just commonsense and now I’m going to tell you that business people believe in enterprise and Vince Lombardi believed in the power sweep and Air Force generals believe in a good air attack and etc. But what’s the point of liberal values if Liberals don’t believe in them. People have the right to call themselves whatever the hell they want. If a red-haired Irishmen wants to call himself Frank Sinatra or Jesus Christ, who am I to say he can’t.

But if you want to be taken seriously for what you say you are then you have to believe in the values of your self-identification. You’re not a Liberal if you don’t believe in liberal values and tolerance is just one of them. Liberalism is based on factually based evidence and the truth. And the first liberal value if free speech. And when you say certain things shouldn’t be allowed to be said even when they’re true, because they may tend to offend, you’re not being liberal.