Barca Footballman: Video: Milton Friedman Schools a Brainwashed Leftist

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

The man in this video trying to explain why school choice does not work even though he failed to do that and at best laid out some of the disadvantages that poor Americans especially African-Americans face in this country was just repeating talking points of leftist supporters of teachers unions and so-forth. Along with questioning motives and reasons why people who support school choice That supporters of school choice assume that school choice is the answer to education and that they assume everything being equal with each racial group in the country. No one is making these assumptions.

Parents who have experienced school choice and let’s take charter schools to use as an example schools that are owned by government but operated independently like school choice. Because they see their kids actually getting an education. With a real shot of making it in life unlike their parents who were probably stuck in school where they weren’t able to do that, or didn’t take advantage of the opportunities given to them.

You need to know about the opposition of school choice and why they oppose it. Who do teacher unions represent and why they are in business. If you guessed teachers, well good guess captain. Would you like another question? And what school choice represents is competition inside of the public school system when you are talking about public school choice including charter schools. Which means if parents don’t believe their neighborhood school is effectively raising their kids, they can send their kids to a better school. Which means fewer resources and students going to that underperforming school.

Public school choice means competition inside of the public school system where teachers wouldn’t be guaranteed of advancement and raises just for simply being a teacher. Where public schools wouldn’t be guaranteed new students for simply being in existence. Which means teachers would actually have to produce. Meaning their students would actually have to learn what is being taught and be at grade level. Or they could lose students to other schools and teachers may be out of jobs. And that scares the hell out of teachers unions.
Hispanics For School Choice

Posted in Milton Friedman | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Kyungho Dean: Edward R. Murrow vs. Joe McCarthy

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

To quote Edward R. Murrow. “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty”, which pretty much sums up the difference between people who believe in free speech and fascists. “We cannot defend freedom abroad when we are making it weaker at home”. Going to other countries to defend freedom and American values as we are crushing those values at home for the American people. That is what this debate in the early and mid 1950s was about.

Ed Murrow and his nightly newscast See it Now and their investigation into Senator Joe McCarthy’s committee hearings about supposed Communists inside of the U.S. Government put CBS News on the map as far as TV in this country. And probably led to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite that eventually became a half-hour show. Because Murrow and See it Now took down a movement that was trying to destroy free speech and assembly for the rest of the country. Which is what Joe McCarthy and his supporters were about.

Posted in Classic News, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Democratic Strategist: J.P. Green- Public Wants Supreme Court Reform

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Reforming the U.S. Supreme Court is something that I’ve been thinking about for five years now which is also when I started blogging. And is something I take very seriously especially considering how important the Supreme Court is where it can essentially kill bills on its own and can practically rewrite legislation on their own. By saying “we accept this part of the law, but this is what must go. And if you reform this part of the law, we’ll accept it later on”.

This is not about ‘judicial activism’. I mean seriously judicial activism is something most of us can probably define either on the Right or Left. Which is laws that are written from the bench. Meaning judicial rulings that change the meaning and effects of laws. But as U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham has said Republican from South Carolina no moderate by any real definition. “Judicial activism are judicial rulings that you disagree with”. Which is sort of a simplistic definition, but the Senator is correct. Because when one side loses they tend to claim judicial activism pretty quickly.

We live in a country of over three-hundred and ten-million people with fifty-states. We have a bicameral Congress with five-hundred and thirty-five members in total from the House and Senate. Yet we have a Supreme Court that in many ways is just as powerful as Congress and even the President in some cases, but they only have nine members including the Chief Justice. Where none of the states have a representative on the court as far as representing them. And where they all have lifetime appointments and never have to reapply for a job regardless of the job they do and all live off of the taxpayer’s dime.

I’m not looking for a democratic Supreme Court and to turn them into official elected politicians. I’m not even looking for time limits as far as how long someone can serve on the Supreme Court. What I want to do is make the Supreme Court accountable to the people it serves which are the people who pay their salaries. As well as more representative to the country it serves in. Again not talking about making it an elected body, but increasing the size of the Court and holding the Justices accountable to the people.

So here is what I would do. Have fifty Justices one for each state. As well as perhaps some type of delegate for the U.S. territories, but perhaps without full voting power. The Chief Justice and their deputy would be an at-large member. And there would be a new position representing the opposition or minority on the Court as well with certain duties and responsibilities. That would lead the opposition in representing the opposing view and alternative when there is a clear partisan divide.

Each U.S. Justice would be their U.S. Justice from their state and get to rule on which cases from their state would make it to the floor of the U.S. Supreme Court with the other Justices weighing in. The President still appoints each Justice, but that Justice would now serve a six-year term if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And then have to be reappointed and reconfirmed by the Senate again to stay on the Court. Instead of getting to stay on the Court indefinitely.

Again not looking or interested and would oppose any attempt to make U.S. Justices democratically elected politicians. Because the Supreme Court deals so much with the U.S. Constitution itself and Justices aren’t lawmakers or executives, but judges of law and the constitutionality of them. What I want to do is to make them a lot more accountable for the jobs they do and allow for the people through their U.S. Senators to decide if they deserve to keep their job and hold them accountable.

Posted in Role of Government, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

PBS NewsHour: Jeffrey Brown Interviewing John Oliver on Making Fun of Serious News

Posted on July 14, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

If John Oliver is in America to find public officials making complete assholes out of themselves, he’s in  the perfect country. Actually I can’t think of another country other than maybe France or Italy. And the perhaps funniest thing about our assholes, I mean (sort of) public officials is that they work for us. Let me rephrase that. Our public officials are paid by us American taxpayers to work for us. Whether they work for the broader public, or just their lobbyists and high contributors is still officially an open debate. And that is only because there isn’t enough evidence yet to put our public crooks in jail yet.

Posted in NewsHour, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nation: Lee Fang: The Real Reason Why Pot is Illegal

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

The Nation: Opinion: Lee Fang: The Real Reason Why Pot is Still Illegal

Lee Fang is right about the reason he gave as why marijuana is illegal in America. It’s called the prescription drug industry that produces drugs that are very addictive and once addictive they become dangerous. Pain killers comes to mind very quickly and so does steroids. And I thought his example about former U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy where Representative Kennedy now a marijuana prohibition advocate saying that “there are extremists pushing for legalization of marijuana”. Give me a break, the only thing that is extreme is marijuana prohibition and the broader War on Drugs which I’ll get to later.

But the prescription drug industry and their lobbyists and advocates are just the beginning when it comes to marijuana prohibition in America. Here are several more real reasons just off the top of my head. The alcohol and tobacco industries, the Prison Industrial Complex with includes both the private prison industry and construction companies that build public prisons in America. Who would all lose a hell of a lot of money if marijuana were to be legalized.

Think about it young Americans especially lets say the X and Y generations overwhelmingly prefer marijuana over alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana doesn’t make them feel as bad if bad at all. And it doesn’t hurt their lungs as much, or make their clothes smell. Or give them god-awful migraine headaches from alcohol hangovers. You legalize marijuana and that would cost these industries that are opposed to marijuana legalization and champions of the broader War on Drugs a hell of a lot of money.

But that is just alcohol and tobacco. How about the Prison Industrial Complex and the loss of money they would have to deal with. Think about it you legalize marijuana and now we are sending less people to prison each year over it as a result. And would have less need for prisons and cells because we would have fewer prisoners as a result. Prescription drugs are big backers of marijuana prohibition and the broader War on Drugs and I’m not arguing that they aren’t. But they have other partners who are fighting marijuana prohibition as well that are just resourceful if not more.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sheldon Richman: Crime & Punishment in a Free Society

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Before you talk about crime and punishment in a free society you should first talk about what exactly is crime and punishment and what is a free society. If you are currently confined in prison as a convict or in jail either serving a light sentence as far as time, or awaiting trial for a felony, well obviously your world or society is not free. I mean seriously what sober person in their right mind not mentally challenged in any way would choose to live in prison or jail. But what is crime and punishment? Well I’ll tell you what it should be which is punishment for crimes against society and innocent people’s freedom. Especially the Right to Life that jail or prison is the only option as a suitable punishment for the offender once convicted.

A free society is not the freedom to do whatever the hell you want including hurting innocent people. Which is what Neoconservatives and to a certain extent Progressives seem to think it is. Which is why I’m neither a Neoconservative or Progressive. A free society is where a society where the people have the right to mind their own business and manage their own individual affairs. As well as being held responsible for how they manage their own affairs. Where law enforcement comes in is to manage how people interact with each other. Not arrest people for what they do to themselves and try to protect people from themselves.

But that is not how crime and punishment works in America. You can be a victim of a real crime with the offender getting away with it because law enforcement, or the prosecution, or a combination of both screws up the case with the guilty walking away because their constitutional rights were violated. And you can end up doing time in jail or prison for something that is not really a crime in a true free society. But government has taken upon itself to try to protect us from ourselves. Like being arrested for gambling your own money. Or being arrested for possessing or using pot to use as examples.

We have roughly two-million Americans give or take in one form of incarceration in the United States if you add up federal, state and local government’s. And a big reason for that and not the only reason is because America is truly not a free society. We are freer than most if not everyone else when it comes to individual rights and personal freedom. But a big reason why we have so many Americans in prison is because we arrest people for either their own good. Or sending people to state or federal prison when they could’ve been given probation, or sent to a halfway house, county jail or even rehab.

It is not just that we aren’t a true free society that America has no many prisoners. But also because we over-sentence and too many times use prison as the first if not only option when it comes to felonies in America. And I’m talking about real crimes, but also things where the prison should be the last option because the only person the offender is hurting is them self. The War on Drugs comes to mind damn fast. And if you are thinking I’m not offering any solutions to this problem, think again. Because I already have, but I’ll repeat them. Make America a true free society and don’t use prison as the first option for lower-level felonies especially where there are better options available.

Posted in Crime & Punishment, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Townhall: Cathy Reisenwitz: Self-Described Liberal Millennial’s Are Actually Libertarian

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Forget about Latinos, African-Americans and perhaps every other non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant population in America being the reasons why the Republican Party is in trouble. The Millennial Generation which covers all of these racial and ethnic groups are the big problem for the GOP. Because Millennial’s tend to be what they see Republicans as not being. Believer in social tolerance, personal freedom, getting government out of our personal lives and open to new ideas.

I actually saw the Reason-Rupe poll last week about the millennial’s and their liberal leanings. And it is true that Millennial’s tend to vote Democratic over these issues. Not because they are in love with the Democratic Party. Most Americans are not, but because they don’t like the Republican in too many elections for the GOP and believe voting Democratic is better than not voting at all. Or voting for a third-party candidate that doesn’t have a blizzards chance in South Florida in July of winning.

But if you look at what is supposed to pass as liberalism today and Liberals, that is not the reason Millennial’s are voting Democratic. If you believe in the liberal stereotypes, Liberals look more like Communists are some other type of far-left collectivist than they do Liberals. Millennial’s tend to like the concept of the safety for people who need it. But they are not interested in a welfare state to manage their own economic affairs for them. And are not interested in a nanny state to manage their personal affairs, or manage their physical health for them. Millennial’s tend to believe they are more than capable of managing all of these affairs for themselves.

Millennial’s are more likely to vote for Ron Paul or someone like him like his son Rand Paul than they are to vote for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, or some other Social Democrat on the Left. But they would also prefer someone like the Paul’s over a Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum on the Right. Because again they believe in both economic and personal freedom. And only the Paul’s from this group would give them both.

So as a Democrat I’m saying personal freedom is great and we should continue to push that. But not try to create some superstate in America with taxes so far up our, nose (to keep it clean) to pay for it where economic freedom and personal choice would be very limited. But instead economically say “we believe in economic opportunity to go along with choice and responsibility so as many Americans as possible have the freedom to run their own lives”.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VOA News: Congress to Focus on US Border Crisis

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

At some point Congressional Republicans are going to have to decide if they want to solve the Texas border crisis, or keep it going to use it against President Obama and use it as an issue during an election year as part of their grand scheme to add to their House majority and win back the Senate. They can’t have it both ways because if the crisis is actually resolved, then their goes a political issue for them. But if they keep it alive then they can claim that “President Obama is not enforcing immigration law and securing the border”.

Take the Tea Party out of the equation in Congress and this is a fairly easy issue to resolve. Texas Governor Rick Perry calls up the Texas National Guard to secure the border and prevent violence from happening down there and to prevent further smugglers from entering the country. Governor Perry says he wants to do this, but so far has failed to act and has instead backed conspiracy theories that “President Obama not only caused the situation down there, but did it on purpose”.

Again without the Tea Party perhaps Congress comes together and passes a bill for the extra funding to deal with the illegal immigrants at the border last week. Because the House and Senate would’ve acted responsibly and saw the crisis down there and decided we need to do something about this. Doesn’t mean they would’ve taken the Obama Administration’s bill as written. Perhaps they would’ve amended it, but they would’ve passed something real that the President probably signs.
Posted in The New Democrat, VOA News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks On Suing the President & The Texas Border Crisis

Posted on July 11, 2014 by kireschneider

Is the President going too far with executive power? It depends on which party you are a member of and which party the President is a member of. Congressional Republicans didn’t seem to have any problems with President Bush during the 2000s when it came to executive power. But now are going crazy over President Obama when it comes to executive power. And on the other side Democrats hated President Bush over his use of executive power, but don’t seem to have many issues at least that they are raising publicly when it comes to President Obama’s use of executive power.

As far as the Southern border and the situation with the immigrant smugglers and the children they brought. It is probably the worst crisis that President Obama has had to deal with at least since the BP oil spill in 2010. But at least he’s prepared to deal with it and has already acted on it. And if Congressional Republicans are truly angry about the situation down there and the President’s use of executive power and executive orders than they can work with President Obama and Senate and House Democrats to solve the problems down there. Like making sure our security and immigration services have the resources to end the crisis in a responsible manner.

Posted in Originals, Shields & Brooks | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nation: William Greider: What Does the Democratic Party Actually Believe?

Posted on July 11, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The Nation: Opinion: William Greider: What Does the Democratic Party Actually Believe?

The Democratic Party today and throughout it’s history perhaps even through the 19th Century has always been a party of parties or political and ideological factions. It is called the Democratic Party for a very good reason. Because Democrats believe in democracy whether they are big D Democrats meaning registered Democrats, or small d Democrats who aren’t registered with the Democratic Party. That means Democrats who believe in democracy, but that doesn’t mean we all share the same political ideology, because obviously we don’t.

We are not called the Liberal Party, even though we obviously have a liberal faction that I’m proud to be a member of. We are not called the Progressive Party even though we have a progressive faction. We are not called the Centrist Party even though we have a small but centrist faction in the party. We are not called the Conservative Party obviously and we pretty much no longer have a conservative faction even though really up until the 1980s or so we did have one.

The Democratic Party is not a party with one governing political philosophy, but a party that is made up of people who share the same values and goals. Generally as it relates to the economy and to a certain extent as it relates to social issues. But we don’t share the same policies in how to accomplish the goals we share. Which was obvious during President Obama’s first term and still is obvious today. And the Democratic Party works when we are able to incorporate the best from all of our factions into policies and throws out the garbage from the fringe. To give voters a reason to vote for Democrats.

The Democratic Party has a liberal faction that I call New Democrats which I’m one. That believes in both personal and economic freedom and a high degree of both. That wants all Americans to have a good shot at being successful in life so they don’t need all of those government interventions and programs to survive that the Bill Greider’s of the world believe we should spend a lot more on. And New Democrats tend to very pro-choice as well and not just as it relates to abortion, but a whole range of personal issues.

We have a FDR New Deal Progressive faction as you see in Congress today as well with Senator’s Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Tom Harkin in the Senate. and Representative’s George Miller, Henry Waxman and others in the House. They tend to agree with Liberals on social issues, but as it relates to women’s issues they tend to believe that not only should women have choice, but that others should have to pay for those choices as well.

Progressives tend to be a bit more paternalistic when it comes to social issues like alcohol, tobacco, gambling and even today with junk food, soft drinks and even marijuana. And want government to be much more involved in the economy when it comes to the safety net. But believe that people should have the opportunity to be successful on their own with a good education.  And that the public safety net can be used to empower people at the bottom to move up.

Then we have the what I call Social Democrats (to be nice) in the Democratic Party what I call the Bernie Sanders faction that The Nation Magazine is part of. That believe “the New Deal and Great Society are out of date. And that the American form of government and even Constitution are out of date. That our federalist form of government with the three layers are out of date. That instead of having a country that is based so much on constitutional law and individual rights that we should move to a more collectivist social democratic form of government. Where more power is centralized with the central government for the benefit of the people’s welfare. And we are run primarily if not exclusively on majoritarian rule. Instead of being run by the Constitution as is common in Europe”.

So when someone says Democratic Party I almost say which one. Because if the party ever did break up you would see several fairly large parties replace it all having different names. And one says they are a Democrat I almost want to ask them what kind of Democrat are you? Because again we have four different factions all having enough power to at least get elected to Congress and having a major voice inside of the party.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment