Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano: 'How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom'

Source: Reason Magazine- Libertarian lawyer Andrea Napolitano, talking to Reason about Theodore Roosevelt.

Source:The New Democrat

"The radical change in the relationship of the federal government to individual Americans was ratcheted up greatly in the Progressive Era," argues Judge Andrew Napolitano in his new book, Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

The first decades of the 20th century saw an assault on individual liberties that was both unconstitutional and unprecedented in American history. From crackdowns on freedom of speech to the seizures of vast swaths of land, Judge Napolitano shows how the policies of two presidents from opposing parties laid the groundwork for a century of ever-expanding federal power.

Judge Napolitano is chief legal analyst for Fox News, a syndicated columnist, and a Reason contributor (read his archive here). He recently sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about his latest book and discuss the relevance of the Progressive era - a time of prohibition, military expansionism, and vilification of wealth - to today's political struggles."

From Reason Magazine

Libertarians which is what both Nick Gillespie and Andrew Napolitano are, (not that there's anything wrong with that) understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is very different from every other political faction.

Every political faction in America except the Socialists on the Far-Left and the Christian-Nationalists, Alt-Right racist terrorists on the Far-Right, generally support and believe in the U.S. Constitution. But Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians, now believe that government and even the Federal Government, has some role when it comes to the safety net and public welfare in the country. They believe that these programs should be run by the states and local government's and be block granted to them. But Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives, all now support some role at least for the Federal Government when it comes to the public welfare and a regulatory state.

So course the Andrew Napolitano's of the world are going to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and other Progressives, when it comes to the general welfare clause and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. There are Libertarians who believe taxation is theft and don't see America as like a club with hundreds of millions of members that we are all part of and have to pay dues (meaning taxes) in order to keep our membership in that club. So of course Libertarians are going to see the Square Deal which gave us the regulatory state in America, the New Deal, which gave us the safety net in America, and the Great Society, which expanded the safety net in America, of course Libertarians are going to see these programs and agendas as unconstitutional.

Progressing America: Theodore Roosevelt- 'The New Nationalism'

Source: AZ Quotes- Theodore Roosevelt: talking about what he called The New Nationalism.

Source:The Daily View

"This is not the speech of a conservative republican.  In this speech, Theodore Roosevelt lays out plenty of the progressive agenda, which we are stuck with today.  The text of the speech can be found here: Teaching American History 

From Progressing America

Source: Progressing America- Theodore Roosevelt: talking about what he called The New Nationalism.

What Theodore Roosevelt was advocating for in what he called The New Nationalism, was what became The New Deal in the 1930s. Which is what became the American safety net. Progressives don’t believe in blowing up capitalism, they simply want to make it better so it benefits more Americans. Unlike Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debbs who also ran for President in 1912 and Senator Bernie Sanders and other Socialists (whether they call themselves Socialists or not) today.

Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism was the political platform that he and his Progressive Party ran on in 1912.

Unemployment Insurance for American workers who are unemployed.

A minimum wage for all workers.

A national pension system for all workers that they could collect from when they retire.

A national health care program that would cover both health care and health insurance for Americans.

Most of these proposed programs became part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda in the 1930s. Pre-safety net in America if Americans fell on hard times, they either had to take care of their problems themselves, or get friends or family to help them out, or rely on private charity. If they still couldn’t get their issues taken care of, then they were essentially screwed, or out of luck. (If you want a softer term)

What became the New Deal in the 1930s and then later the Great Society in 1960s, did was to guarantee financial help and assistance for any American who fell on hard times and needed financial assistance in form form. Neither Teddy or Frank Roosevelt, wanted to blow up the American capitalist system and replace it with a socialist system. But instead make American capitalism better and make it work for more Americans.

Progressive People's Coalition: Teddy Roosevelt- 'Progressive Party Declaration'

Source: Wikiwand- Progressive Era Progressives.

Source:The Daily View

"Part 1 - 1912 Progressive Party Declaration by Teddy Roosevelt"

From New Progressive Voice

Source: New Progressive Voice- Theodore Roosevelt: the Father of the Progressive Party.

Where I agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin and her book about Theodore Roosevelt, is that Teddy Roosevelt was a much better political leader as President of the United States, then when he left the White House and decided to run for President again in 1912. I would disagree with Doris Goodwin that Teddy was a Centrist as President. As President he was an actual Progressive  who not only believed in progress, but believed in using government to help create that progress. But he wasn’t a Socialist and instead put limits to what government should try to do for the people.

But once TR left the White House he moved further left and became more ideological, more idealistic, and more romantic. And started advocating for things that simply were never going to happen. Like making it easier to amend the U.S. Constitution so it kept up with the times. As a lot of Social Democrats in America advocate for instead of guaranteeing a basic set of fundamental constitutional rights that make it almost impossible for us to lose. Socialists would want the majority to rule at all times.

What makes progressivism at its best and makes it work well when its practiced in its classical form, instead of people who are much further left and more ideological and prefer to be called Progressives because of the social popularity of that term, or don’t want to be labeled as lets say Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, because of the negative stereotypes of those terms, is what progressivism effective is the pragmatism of it and that Progressives believe in the United States, our Constitution, and form of government. Progressives aren’t interested in breaking up our form of government and governmental system. They don’t believe individual freedom and individualism, are dangerous selfish things, but that instead they want to use government to expand individual freedom so more people can benefit from those things. Not just the wealthy and people born to wealth.

I and Doris Goodwin, believe that Teddy Roosevelt moved away from those progressive pragmatic mainstream principles of his time as President from 1901-09 and by the time he decided to run for President again in 1912 and was no longer in the White House, he became more of a left-wing social democratic activist. That perhaps would have been comfortable running as part of the Socialist Party with Eugene Debbs back in 1912. What made both Roosevelt’s (TR & FDR) great President’s, was their knowledge, intelligence, progressive values, but also their pragmatism. And didn’t say that government had to do this or that, but instead looked for the best solution to all problems. Whether that meant expanding government or not.

Progressive People's Coalition: 'Progressive History of America'

Source: IZ Quotes- Theodore Roosevelt, on being a Bull Moose Progressive.

Source:The Daily View

"The Transformation of American Democracy: Teddy Roosevelt, the 1912 Election, and the Progressive Party - By Sidney M. Milkis."

From New Progressive Voice

Source: California Perspectives on American History- The 1912 Progressive Party ticket.

I disagree with the guy talking in this video on perhaps only one thing. He argued (and I’m paraphrasing) that progressivism is neither left or right, but a belief in improving the human condition or welfare of the people. And doing what’s best to achieve those things somewhat at least regardless of ideology. The only thing that I disagree with that is that progressivism is neither right or left. To me at least progressivism along with liberalism, is on the center-left of American politics and very mainstream to the point that probably most Americans whether they’re aware of that or not, are Progressives. Which I’ll explain.

Progressives believe in progress and ,making things and life in society better. What puts them on the center-left is that they believe government has a major role, but not the only role and the national government even, in seeing that society moves forward and progress is always made. I agree with the guy in the video that progressivism is different from both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism at least in the political sense, is about conserving the status-quo and conserving the U.S. Constitution and our constitutional rights. Liberalism is based off the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. But not about conserving the status-quo. Protecting the Constitution and our individual rights, but always looking to move forward and make things better.

What makes progressivism different from liberalism, is that progressivism is not as individualist and less based on individual rights and more based on society as a whole. So it's similar to socialism in that, but where progressivism is different from socialism is that Progressives don’t believe government can do everything for everybody. Progressives don’t believe in nationalizing certain parts of the economy, or having a welfare state big enough to essentially manage people’s personal and financial lives for them.

Progressives believe in American capitalism and even a certain level of economic freedom, short of centralized wealth and having no rules in the economy to protect people from predators. But that everyone in life should be able to be successful and live well. Instead of the private market completely being responsible for who wins and who loses in society. Progressives believe that everyone should have the right and opportunity to succeed in America. Instead of economic wealth and freedom in America to be completely determined based on where, and whom people are born too. That even people born to low-income and even irresponsible parents, should have the opportunity to do well in America.

Slick Rick Nixon: Theodore Roosevelt- 'Why The Bosses Oppose The Progressive Party'

Source:IZ Quotes- Theodore Roosevelt: on bosses and leaders.

Source:The Daily View

"This is a speech from former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (also known as Teddy or simply TR for short) along the campaign trail in 1912. This time, however, he is running under the Progressive Bullmoose Party ticket. Roosevelt compares the Republican and Democratic parties to the Progressive party. He administers the Abyssinian Treatment to the Standard Oil Company and defends his policies. This is the AUDIO RESTORED version, so most of the static is totally gone and it should be pretty easy to hear. There are a few faint pings at the end, I did my best to remove them and overall I think I did a good job of that.

Fun Fact: TR gave the best third party showing come election day of any third party candidate in United States history, sealing 88 electoral votes and 27.4% of the popular vote, while splitting the Republican vote with incumbent President Taft. Because of this Republican split, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson won handily...

Source:Slick Rick Nixon- Theodore Roosevelt: talking about the Progressive Party n 1912.

From Slick Rick Nixon

People who are interested in third-parties and are interested in a new third-party whether its center-left, or center-right, should look at Teddy Roosevelt and his 1912 Progressive Party. TR was the center-left version of Ross Perot.

Ross Perot ran a strong 1992 center-right third-party campaign against President George H.W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton. Ross Perot had a strong center-right fiscally conservative reform movement, that was designed to shake up Washington and the political system there.

In 1992 Perot and his reform movement, ran against high deficits and a national debt, and an economy that was just starting to come out of recession that still had high unemployment. And had a plan that was designed to lead America back to strong economic and job growth, by first addressing the budget deficit and national debt.

TR was a Progressive and was someone who did believe that America should pay its bills and not run up high deficits and debt, especially when the economy was strong, but he also was a Progressive. And believed that government and even the Federal Government, had a major but not the only role, in seeing that the country moved forward and where everyone could succeed in America. Not just the wealthy and the people who are born to wealth. And believed that the wealthy had too much power and money and the country. While too many Americans struggled just to survive and pay their bills.

Back in 1912 America had a choice between two right-wing parties: the Center-Right Republican Party, that had a progressive Northeastern wing in it that TR was part of, but they were a conservative party. And the Democratic Party that was even to the right of the Republicans, with a Southern Neo-Confederate Nationalist wing in it that accepted the fact that Civil War was over and slavery was now illegal, but still believed that Africans were inferior to Europeans and therefor African-Americans weren’t entitled to the same rights and freedom, as European-Americans.

The Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt, was obviously to the left of both the Republican and Democrats. With TR now representing a new and growing progressive movement in the country.

Library of Congress: Theodore Roosevelt- 'Shall We Prepare?'

Source: Donald Brynelsen- "Theodore Roosevelt Preparedness against War: Great Quotes."

Source:The Daily View

"Summary
Two sequences of TR: Sequence 1: views of TR walking onto the porch of Sagamore Hill, Oyster Bay, N.Y., facing the camera, and then speaking on military preparedness during WWI; Sequence 2: views of TR sitting at his desk in the Metropolitan Magazine office in New York City and speaking with a man who may be Carl Hovey, editor of the magazine...

From the Library of Congress

Source: Library of Congress- Theodore Roosevelt, talking about the need for a strong national defense.

Conservatives tend to be labeled as the hawks in America when it comes to national security and foreign policy, especially the Neoconservatives and for good reason. Because they tend to talk and sometimes it's just talk about the need for a strong national defense in America and America is special as being the leader of the world and setting the example that other countries, especially in the developed world to follow.

But what tends not to get mentioned is that it was Progressives and even Progressive Democrats like President Woodrow Wilson, that moved America from being a dovish isolationist country that didn’t believed it needed a strong national defense, if America simply didn’t get involved in the rest of the world, to developing America into the world power that its today. America is still the only country in the history of the world thats a developed country, a free country, and a superpower.

That started with President Woodrow Wilson, but former President Theodore Roosevelt, another Progressive but Progressive Republican and then later a member of the Progressive Party and their 1912 presidential nominee, believed America needed to be strong both economically, but also have a strong national defense. That would make America so strong that no other country would even try to attack us. But to help other countries and our allies when they’re under attack by an aggressive power.

What a lot of Americans I don’t believe understand is that Progressives got us involved in World War I under President Woodrow Wilson, moved us to becoming a world power and tried to create what was called the League of Nations in the 19 teens, that would later be recreated as the United Nations in the 1940s. But Progressives under President Franklin Roosevelt got us involved in World War II in the 1940s and created our National Security State.

A Department of State that works and talks with the rest of the world, including our opponents.

The Department of Defense that is responsible for our own national defense, but works with our allies to keep the peace in places like Europe.

The Central Intelligence Agency that is reasonable for making sure America has the best available information about what both our allies and foes are doing.

Our National Security Council that brings all of these agencies and departments together to see that information is being shared. Progressives are responsible for making America the world power that it is today.

Again, I feel the need to talk about progressive stereotypes, but Progressives get labeled basically as softies if not wimps, and perhaps you have a stronger word. As people who don’t even believe in having a national defense, let alone a national defense. Doves who believe that the job of government is do nothing but look after our economic and physical well-beings, even at the cost of our individual freedom. Except when it comes to national security and law enforcement. When the fact is historically and even now, Progressives have a stronger record when it comes to foreign policy and national security, even strong than some Conservatives especially Conservative Libertarians.

HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- 'Economic Development'

Source:Last Week Tonight- John Oliver, talking about economic development in America.

Source:The Daily Review

"State and local governments offer large financial incentives to attract employers to their part of the country. John Oliver explains what communities get, or often don't get, in return."

From Last Week Tonight

I get that John Oliver don't like corporate welfare and neither do I and perhaps views any tax incentives as private business and individuals steeling government's money. (As Socialists would argue) As if government has any of their own money. The old phrase that money doesn't grow on trees is particularly app when talking about government. Even when government prints money (which is government creating money out of thin air) they need to actually print the bills with a printing machine. Instead of planting paper in the ground and hoping it eventually grows on trees.

If this is about pork barrel spending, then I agree with Oliver on that as well. Tax dollars that are purely designed for politicians to be able to pay off their political debts to their contributors and creates no economic benefit for the constituents that they represent. Which is nothing more than a form of legal bribery in America whether it's done from Congress, or at the state and local levels.

The reason why people stay in Congress for so so long, well their several reasons: they represent people who don't have enough time to research incumbents and candidates, because they're too busy staring at their i-phones and watching reality TV. Which of course is really important in life, not like trying to figure out where their hard-earned tax dollars go whether its for pork or for anything else.

But also people stay in Congress both in the House and Senate for so long because they get fat from pork. And are too fat to move out of Capitol Hill and actually get a real job. And as long as voters don't do their homework on people that are supposed to represent them and people who want to replace their porky Representative's and Senator's, we're going to see tax funded scandals like this. Money to companies that only get tax funded subsidies because they knew who in government to call and to payoff.

That fact is if you want jobs and you want Welfare even and a broader welfare state all together, which is the pot fantasy of a lifetime for Socialists in America, you need what John Oliver was talking about the beginning of his rant which are jobs. You want businesses investing in your communities and they need incentive to locate there. They need a workforce that is actually qualified to do the jobs that will be there. I know, that sounds crazy having people qualified for the jobs that they're supposed to do.

But you also need regulations that are easy to understand and actually make sense, are actually needed, and don't make doing business in your community too expensive. I know, more commonsense, I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. Otherwise we won't have a society where everyone is on Welfare and that socialist dream will never come because again money doesn't grow on trees, not even government money. (Sorry Bernie Sanders supporters) But instead a society where everyone is homeless or looking for an affordable place to live because no one has a job. Because taxes are too high and regulations are so strict that government is practically running what are supposed to be private businesses.

Theodore Roosevelt: 'Absolute Equality, Absolute Justice, In Matters of Taxation'

Source: Google- Theodore Roosevelt, talking about equality, justice, and taxation.

Source:The New Democrat

"Speech by Teddy Roosevelt "Social and Industrial Justice", 1912. TR Speech from Library of Congress."

Source: New Progressive Voice- Theodore Roosevelt, talking about progressive democracy.

From New Progressive Voice

When I think of Progressives and I mean true Progressives and not just people who use the label to self-identify with because they believe its politically or culturally popular and don't use it in pop culture terms, but in political terms, I think of people who believe in progress. Yes, that government can help create progress through government action and even programs, but only use government to create progress and not make things worst.

And certainly not create new programs for ideological purposes and be able to say we created this program or that program, but if you're creating a new program or spending new revenue on it, you're doing that because you know progress will be made. That there is a real need and use for that program, or regulation. That government programs are judged by whether they're working or not. Not by how much money is being spent on them.

Are Welfare programs ( to use as an example ) are they helping people to get out of poverty and become independent and empowering people to achieve freedom on their own. Or are they leaving them in poverty with a little more money than they use to have. That being a Progressive is about making things better and that you should also be fiscally responsible. Are government programs working or not. Are they outdated and need to be reformed, or are they now so successful that you no longer need then and can now scrap them and use those resources to fill another need.

A lot of times politicians especially populists on the Left tell their constituents that they delivered this program or that and spent this amount of money on this program or that one. What they tend to to fail to tell their constituents are the costs of those programs because in many cases they advertise those programs as being free. Like free college, free health care. (To use as examples) They also tend not to tell voters the results of the programs that they support and how effective they are. But instead just tell voters how much money that they were able to spend on them.

Progressives are actually not like that and instead will say this is why this program was created to do this. And this is how much it costs you (meaning the taxpayers) and this is what we get for this investment. This is why we have this program and why we're spending this money on it. Progressives are true American Patriots because of course they love America, but they really do love it and understand that no even great society is ever perfect and will ever be perfect.

That one major difference between a Progressive and Conservative, is that Conservatives believe in conserving. Keeping the status-quo as is. Progressives are about progress and making things better and moving forward. That as great as America is it can always be better and knowing that America will never be prefect, that you always strive for perfection, you always strive for perfect to make America as great as it can be.

To talk about this Teddy Roosevelt quote for a while which also happens to be the title of this piece and probably why I should talk about him and his quote: TR was right that absolute equality and absolute justice, won't be obtain through taxation. We'll never have a society where everything is equal and probably should never have this society. We'll always have a society where some people are more productive than others and as a result will always do better than others. Not because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, but because they were better than their competition. They got a better education, understood their business better and as a result made better decisions and investments and advanced further than even some people he also had a good education and were able to get good jobs.

Teddy Roosevelt was a true Progressive because he believed in progress and using government to make things better for people. He was not Socialist Eugene Debbs (who was from the same era) politically who believed you needed a huge welfare state and even even government involvement in industry to take care of people for them.

What Teddy believed was in a regulatory state not to run business's and private employers, but to protect innocent consumers and employees from predators. That there needed to be certain rules in the economy so you wouldn't have monopolies but so consumers could purchase safe products and workers could work in safe working conditions.

Teddy also believed in a safety net for people who fall through the cracks of the American capitalist private enterprise system and need temporary financial relief when they're unemployed or are working, but don't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a welfare state to manage people's lives for them because he saw people as essentially stupid who aren't capable of making good decisions in society on their own.

So when Teddy Roosevelt says that absolute justice and absolute equality, can't be obtain through taxation, I take that to mean that you can only tax the wealthy so much to take care of everyone else. That America is not Sweden and you can't have the central government collecting all the revenue in the country and then deciding for everyone else what the people need to live well and then giving that money back equally.

What you need to do is create a society and economy where everyone has the opportunity and ability to succeed in life and be as productive as they possibly can, But then with a progressive tax system pay to the government  based on what they earned. But not to the point that it discourages them from making a lot of money in the future. As well as a regulatory state to play referee and not the head coach of private organizations and a safety net to help people get back up when they fall down.

The Millennial Federalist: 'Federalist Coalition- An Awakening of Federalism'

Source: GOP USA- The form of government that the United States of America is built around.

Source:The New Democrat

"In which John Green teaches you about the United States Constitution. During and after the American Revolutionary War, the government of the new country operated under the Articles of Confederation. While these Articles got the young nation through its war with England, they weren't of much use when it came to running a country. So, the founding fathers decided try their hand at nation-building, and they created the Constitution of the United States, which you may remember as the one that says We The People at the top. John will tell you how the convention came together, some of the compromises that had to be made to pass this thing, and why it's very lucky that the framers installed a somewhat reasonable process for making changes to the thing. You'll learn about Shays' Rebellion, the Federalist Papers, the elite vs rabble dynamic of the houses of congress, and start to find out just what an anti-federalist is."

From Crash Course

Source:Crash Course- Talking about federalism and the American Federal Republic.

If you want to know why the United States is a Federal Republic and you’re now an adult, well you missed that opportunity in high school during your social studies class. Perhaps you were too busy texting your classmate who sat right next to you to bother to take and learn social studies. If you’re currently in high school or about to enter high school, I’ll explain why we have a Federal Republic  and very limited government. At least compared with the social democracies, theocratic and military dictatorships around the world.

If you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and paternalistic and takes too much of your money and personal decision-making away from you, join the club. You might have to join a waiting list and have a better chance of winning multiple state lotteries on the same day than being able to join this club anytime soon, because it has somewhere around 200 hundred-million members, not including the Socialists who complain everyday about not being taxed enough and going crazy about all the personal and economic decisions that they have to make every day, As well as the Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists in America who complain that America is too decentralized and because of that states and localities get to make decisions everyday that violates their religious and moral values.

But if you think Uncle Sam is too greedy and too fat, I’ll introduce to King George from the United Kingdom of Britain. Who was so fat because of all the money he took from the American Colonies that he would make Paris Hilton look like a foodaholic today. To be completely serious for a moment and perhaps even multiple moments: the reason why America is a Federal Republic, is because the men who would become our Founding Fathers Englishmen who escaped mainland Britain to come to what would become America later on, were tired of London telling them what to do and taking most of their money from them. Two-hundred and forty-one years later Britain is till a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in a country of almost sixty-five million people resides in London.

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals, actually) wanted to break away from that unitarianism form of government. And create a country where the power would be decentralized. Where yes, there would be a Federal Government primarily responsible for national security, foreign policy, interstate law enforcement, interstate commerce, interstate transportation. But where the states could take care of the issues and make policies that affect their people in their states. Where localities could do the same thing. Where you wouldn’t have Washington with some Federal Superintendent of Education, telling Milwaukee, Boston, and other cities how to educate their kids. How to police their streets, how to regulate their local business’s , and other examples.

In a huge vast country of three-hundred and twenty-million people (get your brain wrapped around that number for a moment) a Federal Republic and federalism are the only way you could be able to keep a country this huge and diverse, with all of our racial, ethnic, cultural, and political diversity, together. Otherwise California, Florida, Texas, New York, perhaps all the states in New England together, would break away from Washington and form their own independent countries. Because Uncle Sam can’t mind his own damn business and is too greedy and paternalistic telling states and localities in many cases thousands of miles away, six-thousand or so in the case of Hawaii. We have a Federal Republic and are not a unitarian social democracy, or a religious theocracy, in order to keep the country together. And come together when it's in our national interest.

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: The Confederacy

Source: Last Week Tonight- John Oliver, talking about The Confederacy, on Last Week Tonight.

"Confederate symbols are still celebrated despite the ugly history they symbolize. John Oliver suggests some representations of southern pride that involve less racism and more Stephen Colbert."

From Last Week Tonight

I believe this is an example of where Britain is very different from America. In Britain, you basically only have one government because the United Kingdom is a unitarian government with most of the governmental power in the country rests with London in England which gets to decide how the rest of the country including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and yes England which is actually a territory that is part of Britain, gets to live. Apparently too many people aren't aware of that and talk about England as if it's some independent country and talk about England as if they're talking about France or Germany.

America is very different where power is much more decentralized. We don't just have fifty states and those fifty states aren't Federal agencies. They are independent jurisdictions that are part of a nation state known as the United States and have jurisdiction over their own affairs in their state. So if Alabama wants to have confederate statues, thats their business. Even if it offends oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies that have nothing better to do with their nights like gee I don't know, studying, getting laid, and instead spend their nights protesting Halloween, Thanksgiving, and now confederate statues.

So if we were in Britain right now whether it was Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, and someone was offended by some statue, Parliament could just declare that statue offensive or the Prime Minister could just do that by herself and that statue would automatically be eliminated. Even if the people in Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, or Manchester, aren't offended by the statue themselves, at least not a majority of the people. But we're obviously not in Britain and neither is John Oliver.

If someone is offended by a statue in Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, Philadelphia, Boston, or wherever else in America, sure they could complain about it and even peacefully protest against it. But don't expect Congress to pass some law telling some city or cities that they have to remove a certain statue because it offends someone or a group of people. Perhaps especially a group of oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies, who keep local coffee houses and Red Bull in business all by themselves.

 Because Congress would be out of their jurisdiction. And don't expect the President to even comment on it. Other than maybe President Donald Trump who will say that there's nothing wrong with having confederate statues. He might complain about having statues that honor African-Americans who fought for the Union in the Civil War, but thats a different issue.

"Mind your own damn business!" Is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not an indifferent person and I see bad things that happen to people all the time that make me feel bad because some innocent person had to experience that. But unless there's something that is really bad that is going on in Maryland, especially involving the State Government and Annapolis is trying to pass some law that I really don't like, I could really care less if Alabama or any other Bible Belt state tries to honor some Confederate figure. Or tries to pass some big government law that tries to outlaw homosexuality, or gambling, to use as examples.

We have a Federal Republic and as along as the states are passing laws that are within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights. Big government laws like banning homosexuality violate the Constitution and would get thrown simply because they violate the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy. But as long as any state is within the Constitution and putting up statues and keeping older statues is certainly within the Constitution, states can honor anybody from the Confederacy that they choose too. And if people are offended by that, they can always vote with their feet (to quote to Ronald Reagan) and move to a state that is more politically correct with the times.

Christian Science Monitor: Jessica Mendoza- 'What is ANTIFA and Does Its Rise Mean?'

Source: CSM- ANTIFA rally somewhere in Berkeley, California. Even though they would probably be a lot more comfortable in China or Cuba, with other Communists. Except that they wouldn't have the right to protest there. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"The University of California, Berkeley, is gearing up for “Free Speech Week,” featuring 'alt-right' speakers. Also likely to turn out: antifa groups, whose appearance at neo-Nazi and white nationalist rallies has led to heated and sometimes nasty confrontations."

From CSM

"The anti-fascism-or Antifa-movement has been around for a century, but in the wake Donald Trump's election they've recently been garnering more attention. The increased profile has led to an increase in followers in the US who want to take fighting white nationalism into their own hands."

Source:CNN- ANTFA rally, perhaps in Berkeley, California.

From CNN

Jessica Mendoza at CMS, pretty sums up exactly what ANTIFA is. (Anti-Fascists Action) They're essentially a collection of far-leftists, Communists even, of course Socialists, and Anarchists. They're not the sons and daughters of the peace-loving hippies of the 1960s who were simply looking for their own way of life and tired of being told by their parents and others that this is how you should live and what it means to be a real American. Who finally decided to break away from the 1950s suburban dad works, mom stays home and raises the kids lifestyle. But instead wanted the freedom to be whoever they were and wanted to be even if that offended the cultural values of the older generations.

ANTIFA are more like the sons and daughters, grandchildren even  of Tom Hayden, Bill Ayers, Jayne Fonda, (when she wasn't acting professionally) Mario Savio, Abbie Hoffman, and many others. People who hated our capitalist private enterprise economic system, because they believed it was racist and left too many people in poverty. As well as our liberal democratic traditions that allowed people they disagreed with to speak out and allowed for right-wingers to organize. Who hated the American system so much that they felt the need to try to destroy it and even use violence to do it.

ANTIFA are not the Bernie Sanders-Jill Stein peace-loving Socialists of today who simply want to bring social democracy to America and combine it with our private enterprise system. But instead are people who again like the New-Left of the 1960s, who hate our capitalist private enterprise system, as well as our liberal democratic form of government, but hate racism and bigotry towards non-European-Americans, non-Christians, gays, women, so much that they'll literally by force even attempt to shut up right-wing groups.

Even right-wing speakers and thinkers who aren't necessarily bigots and don't hate non-European-Americans, people like Ben Shapiro who is a Jewish-American and proud of his heritage, but who does have homophobic views, but who isn't a racist. ANTIFA are people who claim to hate fascism and yet will use their free speech rights to try to physically prevent people they disagree with from using their free speech rights simply because they're offended by what right-wingers have to say.

I label ANTIFA as a collection of far-leftist and Far-Left groups, because that it what they are. They're a movement of illiberal (not liberal) political factions including Communists. People who are so diehard and hard-core with their political and cultural views and believe in them so strongly, that everyone else is not just wrong, but dangerous and offensive and therefor according to them don't have a right to speak and perhaps even live peacefully.

You could be a Center-Left Liberal or Progressive, or perhaps even a Far-Left Democratic Socialist, who doesn't believe in using violence to accomplish your political objectives and believe in free speech even for people you disagree with and you could get labeled by ANTIFA as a traitor and sellout to right-wing corporatists. To compare ANTIFA with Occupy Wall Street of 2011-12, would be inaccurate and perhaps even insulting. Because OWS of earlier this decade is the Bernie Sanders-Jill Stein social democratic movement of today. Who don't believe in using violence to accomplish their political objectives. ANTIFA instead are the violent anarchist wing of the Far-Left in America.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule: Liberal States Rights'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Real Time with The Real Bill Maher. LOL

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill takes a stand against the "outside agitators" who wants to interfere with California's progressive agenda."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Bill Maher is right about at least one thing that people on the Right including Conservatives, but people who are much further right than that and people who I call Neo-Confederates who believe that the wrong side won the American Civil War, who are Southern Nationalists, back in the day argued for what they call states rights. Which essentially means that the Southeast or Bible Belt knows what's best for them and dem damn Yankees in Washington need to but the hell out and mind their own damn business.

Back in the day the Democratic Party controlled most of the power in the country. The thing was those the Democratic Party wasn't really a progressive or conservative party.

They had a Far-Left people who would be called Socialists today the Henry Wallace wing of the party.

They had a progressive Center-Left with that Robert Kennedy represented.

They had a Center-Right that people like Lloyd Bentsen represented, who served in the Congress for a long time and was Mike Dukakis's vice presidential nominee in 1988.

But the Democratic Party also had a Far-Right. Neo-Confederarate Southern Nationalists, who again believe the wrong side won the American Civil War and that if European-Americans especially Anglo-Protestants can't treat African-Americans like slaves, they should at least be able to treat them like second-class citizens under law and not have to give them full-citizenship. Which is why we had a civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

I'm a what I at least call a liberal-federalist and as a true Liberal I'm not comfortable with large centralized authorities and establishments. One of the basic liberal values is decentralization of authority and spreading the power out and not comfortable with top-down management styles including from government. And that the basic role of the Federal Government is to protect the country from foreign invaders, as well as terrorists and criminals who operate in multiple states. As well as enforcing the U.S. Constitution.

That the states should be able to manage their own affairs as long as they are within the Constitution. Which means not having different laws, access and justice for different Americans. Which is why we have Federal civil rights laws. And most importantly that the power be with the people themselves so they can manage their own affairs as long as they aren't hurting innocent people.

So if California wants strict environmental laws even if those laws give them high energy prices, those laws are their business. If Texas wants private school choice and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize secular private schools, that's their business. Just as long as California, Texas, and every other state in the union are within the Constitution. That they don't pass laws that benefit one race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, over another. Or try to create their own military, currency, foreign policy, etc, anything else that would succeed their authority that should be handled by the Federal Government.

What Bill Maher was getting at with his impression of a Dixiecrat from back in the day,  (Dixiecrat-right wing Southern Democrat) was sort of what I was talking about earlier that the Federal Government, dem damn Yankees (as right wing Southerners would call people up North) should stay the hell out of the business of the Bible Belt states and let those states run their own affairs as they see fit. Even if that means having separate and unequal laws and access for European and African-Americans.

Now go up fifty years with the Republican Party which is now has a large faction for former Dixiecrats now Dixie Republicans and now has most of the governmental power in the country with the White House, complete control of Congress, 34 governorships and as solid majority of state legislatures. The Tea Party Nationalist wing of the Republican Party is no longer talking so much about federalism and states rights.

The Far-Right of the Republican Party with all of this power with controlling both the House, Senate, Justice Department, Supreme Court, now believe they can force every state and locality in the nation to govern like them. And force their political and cultural values on the rest of the country. States rights and federalism now to the Dixie wing of the Republican Party, means you can govern yourselves anyway you want, just as long as they approve of what you're doing.

If California wants strict environmental laws, the Trump Administration will challenge those laws in court and saying California doesn't have the authority to do this and environmental laws are for the Federal Government to decide. If Colorado wants legalize marijuana which they passed a few years ago, the Trump Administration will challenge that law in court and argue that marijuana is a Federal issue and not for the states to decide.

Sort of like someone arguing on the Right who is a so-called Religious-Conservative who says they believe in individual freedom. But what they really believe in is that people should have the freedom to live the way that Religious Conservatives approve of. But not necessarily have the freedom to make their own decisions. Or someone on the Far-Left who claims to be Pro-Choice. But what they really believe in is that people should have the right to make choices that the Far-Left approves of.

Federalism or states rights, is exactly that. What good is freedom if you can't make your own decisions? Just because the Federal Government doesn't believe in environmental laws, private school choice, marijuana legalization, and I could go down the line and if I didn't have a life maybe I would, but you get the idea, but just because the Feds might not believe in these things why should they be able to force their values on every other state in the nation.

The whole point of a Federal Republic is that when you have large diverse country which is what America certainly is what might work in one part of the country, might not be approved of or work in another part of the country. Which is why you have a Federal Government there to handle the national issues and leave the states and localities to deal with their state and local issues. Again, as long as all three levels of government are within their authority under the U.S. Constitution. Instead of Big Uncle Sammy getting to decide what everyone should think, how everyone should live, how everyone should govern, as if they're some big over-paternalistic Communist or something.

Real Time With Bill Maher: J. Edgar Hoover, Chelsea Manning & PC Colleges

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Tim Gunn and Bret Stephens.

Source:The Daily Review

"Bill and his guests – Bret Stephens, Fran Lebowitz, Salman Rushdie, and Tim Gunn – answer viewer questions after the show."

From Real Time With Bill Maher

As far as J Edgar Hoover: I don't know how I can talk about him without being accused of a homophobe or some leftist elitist or the Christian-Right because they still can't live with the fact that Edgar Hoover was gay and are still living in denial about it. So I might as well just jump into the discussion about talk about Edgar Hoover and his homosexuality.

To me Hoover represents to what would be faux heroes in America and people who live with bipolar political personalities.  In public Hoover was a hard-core cultural warrior Nationalist who stood up for everything that the nationalist tribalist Right stood for in America. English Protestant Christianity with this fundamentalist religious view of the world as far as who the real Americans are and tried to route out people that the Far-Right sees as the Un-Americans.

First it was Hoover, then it was Joe McCarthy, later Richard Nixon voters, followed by people would be identified as the Christian-Right in America by the late 1970s. Who are Far-Right religious voters who vote based on their religious beliefs and base their politics on their religious beliefs. Even if that interferes with a little sometimes annoying document called the U.S. Constitution. This is the political faction that Sarah Palin represents that voted for and overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump today. So this would be the public Edgar Hoover.

The private Hoover was the King of Queens. (Or is that the Queen of Queens) This openly homosexual man who you would think was the President of the Castro District in San Francisco. Who not only crossdressed but who would treat his boyfriends like they were his girlfriends. And would be treated like a girlfriend by his boyfriends. Crossdressed, spoke with a high feminine voice in private. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ( To quote Jerry Seinfeld ) The public Edgar Hoover was everything that the Far-Right loves. The private Hoover was someone who they believe represents almost everything they hate about America.

As far as Chelsea Manning: if we can have openly sexist and homophobic speakers who talk about Latino immigration as the browning of America (to quote Ann Coulter) who speaks at universities on a regular basis, I don't see why we can't have a transgender ex-Marine who fought for their country in Chelsea Manning's case speak at Harvard. Political correctness and fascism on campus and in America is put down a lot as it should and this blog has contributed to that.

But generally that comes from the Far-Left as far as people who hate anything that offends the Far-Left to the point they feel the need to not just shut up anything and anyone that offends them. But in some cases like with this so-called ANTIFA movement they'll physically attack people who offend them. Trying to shut up Chelsea Manning because she was convicted and served time in prison for releasing classified information and of course for being transgender, is political correctness and fascism from the Far-Right in America. The Sarah Palin/Donald Trump movement.

I just covered political correctness but I did it from the Far-Right. As the panel was saying college is not supposed to be a safe space, at least a safe space when it comes to ideas and politics. But a place to learn and grow, develop, hear things that you haven't heard before even if they offend you. If you want to be at a place where everyone looks, talks, and thinks like you, college is not the place for you. And instead perhaps just spend all of your time at coffee houses drinking lattes all day and learn about the world from your laptop and i-phone. Where people in their 30s might seem like old dinosaurs to you.

I was going to let that Fran Lebowitz comment go about the only real city in America in her view is New York and Chicago. But I don't think I should since Hillary Clinton is the news a lot recently and represents that elitist thinking that everything that is great in America is in New York. And the rest of of us are uneducated fools who don't know how the real world works. That kind of thinking is why Hillary Clinton wrote a book about why she lost the 2016 presidential election. Instead of being too busy to write a book other than maybe her daily diary, because she has an administration to run as President of the United States.

Those blue-collar Democrats who voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly in 2012 and 2008. Because Barack Obama even with his wine and cheese yuppie Democrat personality, could connect to average Joe and Jane voters in America. And didn't expect people to vote for him because of his last name and that he was a Democrat. Or they wanted to vote for the first African-American President of the United States. Hillary expect even blue-collar Democrats to vote for her, because she's Hillary Clinton and she wanted to be the first female President of the United States.