Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise

Source:Federal Expression - The Dan Smoot Report with guess who.

Source:The New Democrat

Just to start off with some of the things that Dan Smoot says here. I think you would get a more intelligent analysis from Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity about liberalism and so-called modern liberalism, than Dan Smoot. And that is not a complement. He lumps liberalism in with communism and fascism. Liberals, believe in human rights and individual rights. Communists, don't and believe that a state strong enough to take care of everyone you wouldn't need individual rights. Because everyone would be taken care of by big government. Liberalism, is about liberty, liberation and liberalization. Not statism, especially in a communistic, or theocratic form.

Now as far as what Dan Smoot's main point about President Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I basically agree with everything he said here, except the nonsense about so-called modern liberalism. President Johnson's goals with the Great Society, was to create a country where everyone would be freedom from anything bad, especially poverty, but discrimination as well. He and his administration, with help from a Democratic Congress and Progressive Republican support in both the House and Senate, otherwise those programs don't pass, built off the New Deal and added new welfare rights to the American safety net. But didn't create some Scandinavian welfare state, where the central state becomes responsible for managing everyone's welfare for them.

So Dan Smoot, is wrong here about what liberalism actually is and what Lyndon Johnson was trying to accomplish with the Great Society. But was right about the dangers of a superstate big government welfare state that assumes responsibility for the personal and economic welfare of each and every individual. But that is not what we have in America and never will. Unless more than half of the country goes on a month long marijuana high and elects Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders President. But you might have a better shot at seeing snow in Atlanta at a Braves games in July, than Stein or Sanders ever getting elected President of the United States. So nothing to be worried about.
Source:Federal Expression

Dan Smoot: Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

Source:The New Democrat

'Should we negotiate with Communist China?' Is sort of a moot question since we already do. And have been for over forty-years now since the Nixon Administration. And we negotiated with Russia the whole time during the Cold War. Russia, which was a much larger threat than China ever was. At least militarily, but never had the economic strength that the People's Republic of China has today, because the Soviet Union was a total Marxist state, with a complete centralized command and control economy. As the total isolation of the Communist Republic of Cuba showed the least almost sixty-years now, you don't improve Communist states by simply ignoring them.

By America engaging with Russia and Communist states in Eastern Europe during the Cold War proved, was that America was by far a superior society and country. Not a people, but our values and form of government, our freedom, was far superior than anything the Communists could offer their people. We proved that by showing the people in those Communist countries what freedom and democracy were about and why they would want those things for themselves either in America, or back home. Americans, didn't emigrate to Russia during the Cold War for the most part. But Russian and other Slavs in the Soviet Union, as well as Jews, emigrated to America during that period.

So of course America should be negotiating with Communist China, Communist Cuba and Communist Korea, as we did with Communist Russia during the Cold War. Because it simply works, because it allows for people on both sides to see for themselves without government propaganda, the differences between freedom and statism. The quality of life that someone has in a liberal democracy, or even social democracy like in Europe, compared with how they would live in a Marxist state. Where there's no such thing as freedom and individuality. Just a superstate, an obese big government, that is addicted to controlling their own people.

Sargon of Akkad: 'Hipster Racists'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- probably crossing a line by comparing OWS with Adolf Hitler.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Progressive hipsters have decided that "racism" is no longer a concept but a "structure" or "system" as a rationalisation to see racism against non-white people everywhere or in turn be prejudiced against white people.

Which, incidentally, is exactly the opposite of what Martin Luther King Jr wanted, but I'm sure they know better than he does."

From Sargon of Akkad

When did race and color blindness become "like so not awesome and old school", or whatever with the New-Left in America? I mean how can someone call them self an admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King when they don't get his basic messages of non-violence and color blindness. 

And let's be clear about what color blindness is and what I'm talking about here is race blindness. Only blind people don't see race and color. So thats not what this is about. What I'm talking about is not judging people based on their complexion and race. I don't think Joe is better than John, or anyone else, because I like his complexion and race, or that we share those things. Their race and color has nothing to do with how I feel about Joe, or John, Mary, Sally, whoever the hell it may be.

"People of color", there's a great hipster term that I hate. As opposed to people who don't have color? Well, if that was true how would you describe people of olive complexion? Which includes Mediterranean-Europeans, Southern Slavs, Jews, Arabs, and other people's? They obviously have color and so do people of Anglo and Nordic descent and Germanic descent. We all have color, just not as much color as other people of color like Africans and South Asians. (To use as examples) 

Again, it goes back to color blindness which is another way of saying not judging people by color, race, or ethnicity. Hipsters don't have a problem with judging people by color and race. Just as long as they aren't Caucasian. Because in their little Pluto size world of the hipster New-Left there's no such thing as racism against Caucasians.

I guess what is called hipster racism and I call it ignorance, because I'm not ready to label all leftist hipsters as racist and I imagine most of them aren't, but hipster ignorance is another example of one things. How tragic the death of Dr. Martin Luther King's was who was the ultimate leader when it came to racial tolerance and equality where he truly wanted an America where Americans weren't judged by race and color. And had the New-Left bothered to study MLK instead of, gee I don't know, Karl Marx, or Che Guevara, well for one, the New-Left in America wouldn't be the New-Left. Because they wouldn't be so far out on a marijuana trip ideologically. 

The Far-Left in America would be a lot smarter and not making people on Left in general look like bigots. But good tolerant people who believe in opportunity and freedom for all. Where we aren't judged by race and color.

Federal Expression: 'Fearless American Dan Smoot'

Source:Federal Expression- 1960s Tea Party leader Dan Smoot.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dan Smoot discusses the need for courageous leaders in the fight for liberty.

Funny anecdotes about the man who helped launch his Television program."  

From Federal Expression 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society."  

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine."  

From Wikipedia

To me at least, Dan Smoot at the activist and media level was the Tea Party leader of the 20th Century. And for anyone in the Tea Party movement who is smart enough to understand who he was and familiar with him Dan Smoot is one of their inspirational leaders. Because a lot of Tea Party members use the same rhetoric that Smoot did and go after what they call moderate Republicans the same way. 

Far-Right (or New-Right, if you prefer) Republicans, accusing Republicans who are simply not looking to destroy the Democratic Party and work with Democrats from time to time as fake Republicans or RINOS. (Republicans in name only) And what they believe that they needed was were Republicans who fight for their so-called conservatives causes at all costs even if that leads to gridlock.

The early 1960s, was certainly a bad time for Conservatives in or outside of the Republican Party. Progressive Democrats had a lot of the power in Washington even with the right-wing Southern block that they had to deal with in their party in Congress. 

The early 1960s especially was bad for the right-wing in America, but the mid-1960s even with more Republicans and Conservative Republicans getting elected in 1966, wasn't a good time for right-wingers in and out of the GOP as well. The Republican Party, was in transition. They still had their Eisenhower/Rockefeller progressive wing, but they also had a growing Southern and Western conservative wing in and outside of Congress. Senator Barry Goldwater, was an example of this.

Dan Smoot was one of the biggest and most important activists in the conservative movement in the 1960s. And a reason my Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater was able to win the 1964 Republican nomination for president. Because the Goldwater Conservatives had grown so much in the GOP that Senator Goldwater was able to get the votes and delegates to win the GOP nomination for president. And Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report which was both a publication as well as radio/TV program was a part of that. 

Dan Smoot was the Tea Party leader of his time and deserves a lot of credit for that wing of the American right-wing, or conservative movement gaining the success that they did in the late 1960s and into the 1970s and 80s. 

Christopher Cantwell: Top Ten Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You

Source: Hang The Bankers-

Source:The New Democrat 

Contrary to popular belief (and yes I feel like a geek for saying that) I'm not a Libertarian.  Anyone who doesn't believe that will have all the evidence they need after they read this post.  I know this is shocking and for anyone who is feeling completely overwhelmed feel free to get loaded on their favorite alcoholic beverage or perhaps something illegal to help calm them down. I hear marijuana has now been decriminalized in Maryland. I'm not interested in eliminating the Federal Government, except for perhaps three departments.  Just don't ask Rick Perry which three those are.

There are several reasons that I'm not a Libertarian.

One:  Unlike Alex Jones  I'm sane, don't live in a mental hospital and am not an escaped mental patient.

Two:  I'm not a big enough asshole to be a Libertarian and view everyone who doesn't agree with me  one-hundred percent of the time as a statist or big government lover, as we saw in Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign.

Three:  Referring to number one, I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the United States Government.  We were actually attacked by foreign terrorists, as all of the hard evidence indicates.

Four:  Referring again to one, I don't believe Barack Obama is a foreigner, born in another country. I not only know where Hawaii is but I can find it on a map.  Like ninety-percent or more of the rest of the country I believe Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. His Hawaiian birth certificate is a hell of a big clue, the smoking gun, if you will.

The stereotype of Libertarians is that they are pot addicts who may have done time in prison for non-pot related activities.  They are like from another planet where government doesn't exist and have the idea that because they didn't vote for the administration in power they don't have to follow their laws or rules.

As long as Libertarians are viewed through this stereotype as people who want to destroy government, at least where they live, they'll always be viewed as anarchists or escaped mental patients who don't deserve the keys to a big wheel let alone the keys to the car that governs the nation. But Libertarians aren't interested in political power, right. Just the power to be left alone. So I guess they have no real incentive to change their ways.
Source:Shane Killian

Camp Constitution: Dan Smoot Report- The United States Constitution

Source:Camp Constitution- the Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Dan Smoot Report.  The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement.  He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show.  He authored "The Invisible Government," one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations.  This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic." 

From Camp Constitution  

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers.[3] Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine.[4]

In 2000, Conservative activist Peter Gemma wrote a biographical sketch of Smoot in The New American. Gemma recounts that Smoot, among his other aberrant positions, challenged Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign for the nominee's embrace of NATO, which Smoot called a globalist organization of questionable value.[5]

In 1970, Smoot opposed the selection of a future U.S. President, George Herbert Walker Bush, as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate from Texas. He claimed that Bush's political philosophy was little different from the Democrats that he sought to oppose. Bush lost the Senate election that year to Lloyd M. Bentsen of Houston and McAllen. Oddly, eighteen years later, Bush would head the Republican presidential ticket, and Bentsen would be the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for vice president." 

From Wikipedia

The whole purpose of the United States Constitution, is to layout what are the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. As well as how the Federal Government interacts with state and local governments and what are the powers of the people as well. What freedom the people in the country have and what is our relationship with the government and what authority does government have to represent us in a civilize society.

This is how we establish rule of law and what makes us a Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Without a constitution, we wouldn’t have limited government and rule of law. Because government in theory anyway, would have unlimited power to either represent us, or rule over us. Which is why the Constitution is so critical so government knows what powers and responsibilities it has. But also to protect the people from unlimited government and authoritarian rule.

The Dan Smoot Report was done in 1962-63. Some time around then when the Kennedy Administration, had a broad economic agenda built around on building the safety net in America. Which was part of Jack Kennedy’s Great Frontier agenda. And part of that had to do with expanding affordable housing, medical insurance for senior, citizens, as well as the working poor and low-income Americans in general. As well as an across the board tax cut to deal with an economy that was growing slowly. And Federal aid to education.

What Dan Smoot and other Conservatives and people who would be called Conservatives Libertarians today, such as Senator Barry Goldwater, argue is that the U.S. Constitution, did not grant the Federal Government all of this power. They argued that the New Deal in the 1930s, was unconstitutional. The Federal Highway System of the 1950s and every new Federal social insurance program like the Great Society of the 1960s, are all unconstitutional. 

The values that Dan Smoot promoted is why I say Dan Smoot, is one of the first Tea Party leaders. But from the 1950s and 1960s, because they make similar arguments today and perhaps use Mr. Smoot as one of their inspirational leaders.

Richard Mourdock: 'Accidentally Releases Response to ACA Supreme Court Decision'

Source:Daily Mail-  U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) who gives new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

Source:FreeState Now

“Politicians are often criticised for using canned responses and working in soundbites.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.

One senatorial candidate in Indiana will have a tough time rebuking those claims, however, after he accidentally released four video responses to the impending Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s health care plan.

Richard Mourdock accidentally posted four different taped responses to the various possible outcomes for the Supreme Court decision which will be released on Thursday.”  

From the Daily Mail 

“Richard Mourdock Accidentally Releases Responses to ACA Supreme Court Decision” 

Source:Talking Points Memo- U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Republican, Indiana) giving new meaning to the nickname Tricky Dick.

From Talking Points Memo 

Without Maine and Indiana, as a Democrat I would be worried about Senate Democrats chances of retaining control of the U.S. Senate, just because of the numbers. 23-33 Senators that are up for reelection are Democrats, tight presidential election mostly likely either way. But thanks to the Tea Party and the GOP nominating Tea Party candidates to replace safe Republican Senators (as far as them being able to get reelected in Maine and Indiana) Senator Olympia Snowe not bothering to run for reelection in Maine, because of fears of a Tea Party challenger in the primary. (Thanks Tea Party! A lifetime of Christmas cards are in the mail for you)

And Richard Mourdock a Tea Party candidate knocking out Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana, instead of Senate Republicans having to pick up 3-4 seats to take the majority depending on the presidential election, its more like 5-6, because they will lose Maine to either a Democrat or a Democratic leaning Independent.

Indiana which is a swing state to begin with, will now have a Tea Party candidate, going up against a Centrist Democrat. Far-Right or Far-Left candidates don’t get elected statewide in Indiana. This is not Mississippi where it’s common for people to believe that gays are responsible for 9/11, or Barack Obama is a Socialist-Muslim, illegal immigrant, from Kenya. Hoosiers tend to be Independent and centrist, and of sound mind.

Just to cover this video: let’s call him Dick Murdock, because I like how that sounds, instead of Richard Mourdock. It makes him sound like a TV private detective or a pornographer. Which could cost him votes in today’s Ozzie and Harriet Theocratic Republican Party that’s been sleeping in a cave since 1955. And hasn’t figured out yet that it’s actually 2012. But not only will Indiana have a Far-Right Republican to consider, that believes Americans aren’t qualified to determine who represents them in the US Senate, but someone who apparently believes he sees visions and can see the future before it happens.

Dr. Dick supports a Constitutional Amendment that would take our vote for Senate away from us and give that vote to State Legislatures, while speaking about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that he wants to amend for U.S. Senate. But a Far-Right Senate candidate that’s also a physic and just had a vision that the Supreme Court will rule that part of the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and only throw out parts of it.

I’ve never had the opportunity to vote for or against a physic before. To tell you the truth a physic would have more than a leg up on his or her colleagues that they would serve with. They could say: “Look, we shouldn’t do that, I had a vision that wouldn’t work. And it would be horrible for the country.” They could also say: “You should vote for this bill because I had a vision that this bill would be great for the country.” And the physic would be correct, because they can see into the future. But the truth is the Supreme Court won’t officially rule on the Affordable Care Act until next week. 

Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: 'Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace: two actual FNC journalists. 

Source:FreeState Now

"Chris Wallace Calls Interruption By Daily Caller Reporter 'Outrageous"

From Talking Points Memo 

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically. 

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- 'A Constitutional Republic'

Source:Federal Expression- The Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now

"The Dan Smoot Report The true form of the US Government is a Republic, Not A Democracy. Not merely a symantic difference. The Founding Fathers despised democracy. They formed a Republic to guard against rule by majority. First we were told we were a democracy, then the republic was transformed into a democracy. Now we are witnessing the democracy collapse into dictatorship."

From Federal Expression 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society." 

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964."  

From Wikipedia 

It’s not a Constitutional Republic that should be goal for people who believe in individual freedom, but individual freedom that should be the goal. And then figuring out what type of governmental system is best that guarantees individual freedom for its people. 

A Constitutional Republic, doesn’t guarantee freedom, Egypt is a republic with a constitution. But even after the fall of the Mubarak Regime which was very authoritarian, they are still not a democracy yet but hopefully for the Egyptian people are moving in that direction.

And if individual freedom is a goal, then it's democracy that you want. And then you have to figure out what type of democracy you want. A liberal democracy, conservative democracy or a social democracy, or a majoritarian democracy and then you have to figure out exactly what’s the best type of government to guarantee your democracy. 

If democracy is what you want, then you’re a democrat in the sense you believe in democracy. Small d democrat, actually, both Democrats and Republicans are democrats. Republicans being Small d democrats. They both believe in democracy just have different views in what democracy is.

If you’re a Liberal such as myself, or a Conservative or Libertarian, you believe in liberal democracy. The ability for individuals to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. As long as they are not hurting any innocent people with their actions. Thats called individual liberty, or Freedom, means the same thing. 

If you’re a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist, you believe in social democracy. With a lot of individual liberty for the people when it comes to social freedom , for the most part, but where the state is highly involved in the economy.

With a social democracy, you get a big centralized government providing a lot of social services through a welfare state financed through high taxes. If you’re lets say a majoritarian for lack of a better word, that government has to be responsive to a majority of the people and what the majority wants is what the country gets and minority rights aren’t respected, then of course you want a majoritarian democracy. Where the majority rules over the minority and gets what they wants. And can make the minority do things, even if the minority doesn’t want to do these things.

After you figure out what type of democracy you want, you have to figure out what type of government is the best form to provide and guarantee this democracy. 

America as I see it is a liberal democracy and not just saying this because I’m a Liberal, but it's the case we are and have been a liberal democracy in the form of a Constitutional Federal Republic. Thats designed to guarantee our constitutional rights. Where Europe is made up of mostly social democracies. Mostly in the form of Constitutional Federal Republics, like in Germany, France and Italy. (To use as examples) And in Britain’s case, they are a social democracy with a monarchy. 

So if you’re a Liberal, Conservative, or a Libertarian, you probably prefer the American form of government. And if you’re a Socialist, you prefer the European form of government. And Liberals, Conservatives and libertarians debate Socialists in America all the time about what’s the best form of government, America, or Europe. And I’m in these debates on a regular basis as well. 

The New American: 'Dan Smoot Report- Basic Constitutional Government'

Source:Camp Constitution- Dan Smoot and his Dan Smoot Report in the 1960s.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Dan Smoot Report.  The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement.  He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show.  He authored "The Invisible Government," one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations.  This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic."  

From Camp Constitution 

"Howard Smoot, known as Dan Smoot (October 5, 1913, in East Prairie, Mississippi County, Missouri – July 24, 2003, in Tyler, Smith County, Texas), was a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a conservative political activist. From 1957 to 1971, he published The Dan Smoot Report, which chronicled alleged communist infiltration in various sectors of American government and society."  

From Wikipedia 

"Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers. Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.'s John Birch Society and wrote for the society's American Opinion bi-monthly magazine...  

From Wikipedia

If you’re a supporter of limited government, as well as individual freedom, that without limited government, individual freedom is threatened (as I am) then you believe in the U.S. Constitution. 

The reason why the U.S. Constitution is so important and what the theory is that the more power that government (and I mean any government at any level) has to regulate our lives and do more for us and take more of our money, the less freedom that we have to live our own lives and do these things for ourselves. It’s a big difference between America and Europe.

America in many ways is about individualism, the liberty for Americans to live their own lives without being harassed by government. And government taking a lot of their money away from them. Where 

Europe in a lot of ways is about collectivism: “That we are all in this together meaning life and that we need to put a lot of our resources together into one pot. For the betterment of all people. And government will take this money from people to make the country as good as possible. Through government services basically.” This is a simple way of putting it, but accurate. 

If you’re a what’s called Constitutional Conservative, or a Constitutional Constructionist, that you basically believe that government should only do what is laid out for it in the Constitution, that you take that text to be literal and only read the constitution in its literal sense, then of course a lot of what the Federal Government does today would be unconstitutional, as you see it.

For me, I see the Constitution as meaning that it’s based on limited government and individual freedom. And the main role of the Federal Government is to protect our individual freedom and not harass us. And not get involved in areas like medical care. Except to regulate it, or marriage at all, except to maybe how it relates to the tax code. Or marijuana, or alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc. Let the people live their own lives as they see fit. (Short of hurting innocent people with what they are doing) That free people have the right to live freely in a free society.

The government should only be doing what the people can’t for themselves, or not as well. That government should be there to regulate and protect. Not regulate people, but regulate how people interact with each other, which is different. 

Government should step  in when innocent people are being abused unfairly and protect and defend the country. Law Enforcement and a military, both strong, efficient and affordable enough to defend the country. Basically looking after the welfare of the people like a referee, but not try to control the people with the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

I wouldn’t eliminate a lot of the programs that the Federal Government currently operates. I would just reform a lot of them. Most of them in the social welfare area by making them independent of the Federal Government. And letting each state set up their own system in how these services would be operated in their state. That would have to meet basic Federal standards and also run independently of the state and local governments as well. 

If we had a Federal Government like this, then I believe we could answer a lot of questions and settle debates. About the role of the Federal Government and what it's supposed to do under the U.S. Constitution.