Whatever your position on the death penalty is and even if you’re in favor of the death penalty, but agree that forty-five years later not executing the Manson Family murderers other than Charlie Manson himself was the correct decision, I think most of the country can agree that once you intentionally take the innocent life of another human being and are convicted of that murder, or murderers, you forfeit your right to freedom for the rest of your life. I could imagine only anti-use of force at anytime groups, as well as anti-prison advocates, or Anarchists having a problem with that.
Bruce Davis, has never even admitted, or apologized for his role in the Manson murders. The only thing that puts him ahead of Charlie, is that he’s made a productive life for himself while in prison. Which is one of the reasons for having prison. Which is the whole point of rehabilitation which is self-improvement and not just preparing people who have a release date on the outside for life there, but empowering people who are serving life, or very long sentences to make a positive life for them self in prison and allow for them to give back. Which is what she should be doing a lot more with our prisons and would make them a lot more affordable to run. But that’s a different subject.
Once you murder someone, you can’t take that back. Your victim never recovers from that. And because of that why should the murder be able to live freely when their victim, or victims can never live at all? So one should feel sorry for anyone who decided to hook up with Charlie Manson. None of the Manson Family members were kidnapped and all voluntarily joined that group. And they were all eighteen, or older when they got involved and they all knew what they were doing when they committed those murders. And they’re all paying the price for it in prison and will continue to pay that price as long as they’re alive. Because their victims will never recover from their murders.
I guess one of the advantages of living in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people that has fifty states, is that it gives you this great opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. And what works and where it works and what doesn’t and where it doesn’t work. That is the beauty of a Federal Republic. We’re still one country as Progressives and Social Democrats like to say, which is true of course. But within that country you have all of these states, counties and cities, that are not just there, unlike lets says the United Kingdom, which has a unitarian national government, but they have real say over their own affairs within their own jurisdiction.
Federalism, doesn’t mean that states have all the power and that the Feds are just responsible for national security, foreign affairs, trade and the currency. And it also doesn’t mean that the Feds have most if not all the power. If we had one superstate with most of the power in the national government, we wouldn’t have a Federal system and wouldn’t be a Federal Republic. We would be a unitarian state and perhaps not even a republic. Federalism, simply defines the roles of the Feds, states and localities in what each level of government is responsible for doing. The Feds, are primarily responsible for national security, foreign affairs, but are also responsible for homeland security, interstate crime and commerce.
The states and localities, are primarily responsible for what happens in their own jurisdiction. Infrastructure, education, law enforcement, regulating and developing their economies, like encouraging investment prosecuting predatory behavior, to use as examples. But the Feds have a role here in how these issues relate to the country as well. Not to run them for the states and localities and take over them, but to offer input and resources. And regulate interstate commerce and trade and prosecute interstate crimes. And under a federalist system like this, you get to see what works and what doesn’t and where. As it relates to education, social insurance for people in need, economic development, energy, criminal justice and a lot of other areas.
Federalism and the Federal Republic, is essentially locked in stone in America. I’ve argued in the past that what today’s so-called Progressives, Social Democrats really, for them to accomplish what they want to do politically in America, they would need several constitutional amendments, if not rewrite it, or eliminate it. Because they would like to see a lot more power in America transferred from the private sector and states, to the Federal Government. As it relates to education, current social insurance programs and would like to create a superstate in America in the form of a welfare state that would be completely managed by Washington. But even people in their ranks like Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, aren’t looking to break up our federalist system.
Myself, I’m a Liberal Federalist, which means that I might not agree with everything that a state is doing, but as long as what they’re doing is within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights when it comes to their own laws and policies. So for example, if Georgia wants private school vouchers and passes that law, I’m not a fan of private school vouchers, but they are within their rights to do that. But if they passed a law that says certain people can’t go to certain public schools, because of their race, ethnicity, or religion, they would obviously be violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the Georgia State Constitution as well.
We have a U.S. Constitution, that is like the official rule book for American government at all levels. And as long as government is following the rules of the rulebook, they are within their rights. And if the people don’t like how their government is playing, so to speak, they can always fire them and replace them with people that they believe will represent them better. That is where liberal democracy comes into play in our Federal system. Which is why I call the United States a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We’re not really one, or the other, but a free society and state that operates under both systems into one bigger system.
I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.
That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.
What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.
So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.
I have to admit, that 2015-16, at least not yet isn’t as interesting as the 2011-12 presidential election cycle, at least when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and proposed constitutional amendments. In 2011-12, you had so-called constitutional conservatives like Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum, both offer several amendments to the Constitution. Representative Bachmann, wanted to use the Constitution so the Federal Government could outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage. Senator Santorum, would’ve actually gone further and supported the first two amendments, but added an amendment to outlaw gambling from the Federal level as well.
Now it seems to me anyway looking from this from the outside as a non-conservative, that someone who calls them self a Constitutional Conservative, would like the Constitution as is. And want to, gee I don’t know, conserve the Constitution as is. And leave the constitutional amendments to Progressives who want the Constitution to progress forward and create more, well progress. I mean this all sounds like commonsense anyway and maybe I just get from not being an addicted career politician whose only happy when I’m holding office and looking for the next step up in my political career. And as a result I feel giant craving for voters who I need to like me.
2015-16, isn’t as bad, at least so far. Hold the phone, because we still have more than fourteen months until the presidential election. You got a couple Democratic presidential contenders, offering amendments to overturn Citizens United. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And few Republicans offering amendments to allow for states to define marriage as only between a man and women. Governor Scott Walker, offered that amendment. Senator Marco Rubio, offered an amendment to excuse people who choose not to buy health insurance from paying a tax on that. Mr. Big Government anti-Federalist Republican Rick Santorum, is back at it with an amendment that would have the Federal Government define marriage for everyone else. Between a man and women.
Keep in mind, the politicians and wannabe politicians that are offering all of these amendments, are all smart enough to know what it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution and why we only have like 27 amendments to it. They all know that there’s a better chance of Paris Hilton winning an honorary degree from both Harvard and Stanford, than the U.S. Constitution being changed anytime soon. What they’re counting on I believe at least is the people they’re speaking to, are unaware of how unlikely these proposals would ever become law. They’re speaking to their audiences and bases both Republican and Democrat. And represent a big reason why so many Americans don’t like American politics and don’t bother to even vote.
As unpopular as the first two years of the Bill Clinton Administration were and how unpopular that Democratic Congress was, it was a very productive Congress and two years for President Clinton. And he actually managed unlike President Obama, to get support from Congressional Republicans on some of his initiatives. Like with two 1993 trade deals, NAFTA and GAT, Family and Medical Leave, the 1994 Crime Bill and few other things.
What cost President Clinton Congress in 1994, was not Congressional gridlock, or even his unpopularity. But really two bills that the President got out of Congress and one bill that President Clinton failed to get out of Congress. That Congressional Republicans in both the House and Senate were able to go to town with. The 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, that not a single Republican in Congress in either chamber voted for. That had a tax hike on the wealthy. The 1993 Crime Bill, that had a gun control provision. A background check before people could buy guns. And of course President Clinton’s failed attempt at comprehensive health care reform.
Whitewater, was a distraction for President Clinton and his administration, but as we know now and as President Clinton told the press over and over more than twenty years ago now, there was nothing there. As far as evidence of criminal behavior from either Bill, or Hillary Clinton. And the whole Whitewater investigation was an example of the problems with the so-called independent counsel law. Because the Whitewater investment happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. More than ten years before Bill Clinton became President of the United States. If the Independent Counsel, was only allowed to investigate Federal officials and what might have gone on while they were employed by the Federal Government, a lot of the Bill Clinton Federal investigations never happen.
What you see here with the questioning in this press conference, is a press that seems to only be interested in supposed scandal and not what is actually going on in the country and what President Clinton and his administration is working on. Like as it relates to the crime bill, health care reform, relations with Congress with both parties, what is going on in foreign policy, like with North Korea, Somalia, the Middle East, China, North Korea, Russia, etc. This press conference looks like CNN of today, where they are overly scandal hungry. And where they’re looking for the next so-called OMG, or awesome story. That will drive ratings and they can spend all of their coverage on.
Wow! My first opportunity to blog about Jeremy Corbyn, who may end up being the next Leader of the Opposition in Britain next month. I’m really only interested in democratic socialism when it comes to socialism. Marxism, I see as another ideology and an extreme form of statism as it relates to social, economic and political policy. Democratic Socialists, are not Marxists, otherwise they would be Marxists. And when you think of socialism, you should think of the European Union, especially the Anglo-Saxon states like Britain and look at the Nordic states in Scandinavia. When you think of Marxism, look at the old Soviet Union. And look at North Korea today.
For me at least, it’s not a question of whether socialism works, not, but how far you go with it. How much do you want centralized with the national government. With the state, or provincial government’s doing less, as well as the local government’s and private sector doing less. Because every developed democratic country in the world has a level of socialism in their national government at least. Democratic socialism, is really about having a big welfare state and big centralized national government, to see to it that no one in society has to go without. And that the central government is responsible for a lot of the basic human services in life. But that the welfare state is essentially funded by a large private sector. Yes, capitalism and private enterprise.
This debate is not whether you should have a command and control Marxist state-owned economy. Or do you want the entire economy to be left in the hands of the private sector. With government only being left with national security, foreign policy, national reserve and law enforcement. This is a debate about how much do you want government doing for the people. How big you want the central state to be versus the state/provincial government’s, local government’s and private sector. But that there is a private sector, because even Democratic Socialists know that Marxism doesn’t work. If it did the Soviet Union would still be in business today. Cuba, wouldn’t have started privatizing parts of their economy and North Korea, wouldn’t be the hell hole that it is.
President Barack Obama laid out The Obama Doctrine in the spring of 2011. He obviously wanted to move away from the Bush Administration’s neoconservative unilateral military force is always the first option policy. But he’s not an isolationist from the Far-Left, or anywhere else that sees America and the American military as a force of evil and the reason for violence around the world. This argument that President Obama is afraid to use the military, or is anti-military, simply doesn’t hold. He expanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009, the so-called Afghan surge. And committed us to the Libyan no fly zone in 2011. And tried to get Congressional approval to hit the Assad Regime from the air in 2013, but failed to get it.
To put it simply, Barack Obama is a liberal multi-lateral internationalist. That America should be strong at home both militarily and economically. So no one would want to, or would be able to attack the United States. But work with our allies abroad to deal with crisis’ oversees. That America should take a lead role around the world, but simply can’t lead the world and certainly not police the world, especially by ourselves. This idea that President Obama has pulled America back, is true. But he has pulled America back in the sense that we no longer try to do everything ourselves. We negotiate with others especially to avoid war and avoid invading countries simply because we see them as dangerous.
President Obama, is not some New-Left radical from the 1960s. Who never believes in the use of force and is a pacifist as well as an isolationist. And if you don’t believe that, just ask Code Pink, who do represent the Far-Left in America, at least when it comes to the American national security and foreign policy. Code Pink, has all sorts of issues when it comes President Obama on foreign policy and national security. President Obama, believes in defending our interests and defending our values around the world and even using our military to do that. But that even though we are the strongest power in the world, we aren’t the only one. And that we have partners who have responsibilities as well. Canada and Europe especially, but in the Middle East and Asia, as well.
I think the only thing that I agree with this right-wing anti-Obama presentation from the Hoover Institution here, is that President Obama, does believe domestic policy is related to foreign policy and national security. I would just put it differently. The President believes that for America to be as strong as it possibly can, we need to be as strong at home as possible as well. We need a strong economy, a modern infrastructure system, a modern immigration policy, reform our tax code, get off of foreign oil and gas, develop our own natural resources, expand American exports. So we have the resources that we need and the influence that we need to defend our national interests and values.
The way Aunt Merryweather describes left-libertarianism, is how social liberalism is described and what social liberalism is. I use to see myself as a Classical Liberal, or even Liberal, which is what this blog is about for the most part. And then I read up on so-called Social Liberals and social liberalism. And the way that is put is people who believe in both individual freedom, both personal economic. But they also believe in using government to expand freedom for people who are struggling. You can call that the safety net, or social justice.
So after reading up on Social Liberals and social liberalism, I thought to myself, you know what I’m a Social Liberal. I didn’t like that term before, because when that term is used today that is the way you would describe a Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist, or even Progressives of today. People who believe in not only a supersize welfare state, even if that means less income for people individually with higher taxes, but a nanny state. To make sure people are living healthy and not making bad decisions with their own personal lives.
If more Americans would just read up on social democracy and democratic socialism and then looked at their own politics and realized they believe in both personal and economic freedom. And don’t want a big government to try to manage their own lives for them economically, or personally, they would realize that they’re Social Liberals as well. Because they believe in a safety net and social insurance, but that those things should be for people who truly need them. Not big enough to try to run people’s lives for them. And only be left with mindless decisions over their own affairs. Without being able to take any risks with their lives.
I’ve never thought of myself as a Libertarian, even though I tend to be with Libertarians on 99% of the social issues generally. And even a lot of the economic issues. Because again it gets to role of government. I don’t want a big government, but I want a government effective enough to protect the innocent from predators who would harm them intentionally, or otherwise. Which includes, law enforcement and national security, but also a regulatory state not to run business’s for the people, but again to protect the innocent from predators. So products are being made safely and for the consumers as well. And today’s so-called Libertarians, don’t seem to have much if any role for government at any level.
I believe the whole point of President Kennedy’s speech here is that as different as the American and Russian form of government’s and system’s during the Cold War were, that the American and Russian people actually have a lot more in common that a lot of people tend to think. That we all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, cherish our children’s future and so-forth. That as bad as the Russian communist system was, there were plenty of things to actually like about the Russian people and Russian society. The only thing a superpower war would’ve brought America and Russia, is mutual destruction.
I think what President Kennedy was calling for was to find ways where America could work with Russia on their common interests and actually learn from each other. That both countries were going to do their things so to speak and promote their interests and system’s, but trying to destroy each other was simply not an option. Because both countries would end up destroyed essentially even if one of them were to come out looking a little better. As long as the Cold War was, the United States and Soviet Union, never went to battle with each other physically. Because they were both smart and sane enough to know the consequences of such a war.
I believe had President Kennedy lived and finished out his presidency, he probably gets reelected in 1964 against Senator Barry Goldwater. And this peace through strength strategy that I believe he was laying out here would have gone into effect. That America, would have continued to be as physically and economically as strong as possible, but not to physically destroy the Soviet Union. But to show them that they can’t destroy us and that are economic and political system’s are so much stronger than their’s and that it would be in their best interest to work with us. Simply because they would never even be strong enough economically to even compete with us with their Marxist system.
This is really something that we should’ve been doing since the so-called War on Drugs started in 1971. But then had we of done that, then maybe the War on Drugs is never started. Wait, that would’ve actually been a great thing. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of people we wouldn’t have in prison today. And instead of collecting tax dollars, instead they’re getting cleaned and paying into the system instead. What I’m getting at is not a question of whether this would be a good idea or not. That is treating non-drug selling drug offenders as addicts and putting them in rehab instead of jail. But the question is like any government initiative especially when budgets are tight, is how you pay for it.
Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which I believe I’ve made clear on this blog. But it does have at least three major shortfalls. Not creating a public option for Medicare. So non-seniors, could pay into Medicare along with their employers and use that as their health insurance. And it would have been their option, not mandate. Dealing with mental health care and not fulling paying for our mental health care system in this country. Had we done that, I believe we would have fewer shootings today. Because those shooters would have been in a mental hospital getting the help that they need. And the other has to do with drug rehab and the War on Drugs.
You put drug addicts into rehab and people who are caught in possession of heroin, cocaine, or meth, in halfway houses, if they’re not addicts instead of jail, or prison and same thing with small time drug dealers, we would have a mentally and physically healthier country. We would also have a hell of a lot fewer people in the criminal justice system. Instead they would be in the health care system as it as to do with drug abuse. And abusing alcohol, tobacco and legal medications, is also abusing drugs. Only you don’t go to jail for abusing those drugs if that’s all you’re doing. But you do make a mess of your life that others may have to pay for.
I think the way we finance drug rehab in America, is the same way we could finance mental health. Which is though the health insurance system both private and public. Require all public and private health insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, to cover mental health and drug rehab. I would even be happy raise the payroll tax and cut the corporate tax to pay for this. So people don’t lose other benefits as a result. And tell illegal drug users, that they’re going to rehab instead of jail. And they successfully complete the program. They won’t get a criminal record as a result. Instead of treating essentially mental patients, which addicts are in a way, like felons.
Football Stadium Digest covers major stories and events in the planning, construction and operations of NCAA and professional NFL football stadiums across the United States and Canada.
Derik Schneider
Ederik Schneider
Erik Schneider
FredSchneiderUS
kireschneider
The Daily Review
Rik Schneider
TheActionBlogUSA
The New Democrat
The New Democrat 
You must be logged in to post a comment.