John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Mr. Manifesto: Teddy Roosevelt- 'Saved The U.S. From a Communist Revolution'

Source:Mr. Manifesto- Theodore Roosevelt, vs. the Socialists 
"Why wasn't there a Communist Revolution in America?
I explain my theory on how Theodore Roosevelt prevented a Communist Revolution in The United States of America."

Source:Square Deal- Theodore Roosevelt: the father of the Progressive Era?
Here more at Mr. Manifesto 

The guy in this video, ( I wouldn't bet a penny that his given name is Mr. Manifesto: I mean what father in the world, would be willing to call their own son Mr? LOL ) is essentially arguing that there are two factors that prevented America from becoming a communist state through a communist revolution or any other means.

One, Theodore Roosevelt became President because he was President William McKinley's Vice President and President McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

Two, that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a Communist or Socialist himself and that he didn't want communism or socialism governing America.

The guy is right that pre-TR, America was govern by corporate-friendly ( if not corporatist ) President's, as well as Congress's. America, was basically an Ayn Rand wet dream or book ( except this story wasn't fictional ) where government especially at the Federal level had almost no role in the economy.

You had business executives and owners that were very wealthy and most of the country was working very hard for very little and struggling just to pay their bills. And TR wanted to change that first with his Square Deal ( which created the regulatory state in America ) as President and when he wanted to become President again in 1912, he ran on what his cousin Franklin as President would put in place in America in the 1930s what became the New Deal, which created the public safety net in America.

Even when Teddy Roosevelt ran again for President in 1912, the Communist Revolution in Russia was still about 5 years away. Teddy, wasn't a Socialist or Communist and didn't want America to become a socialist state of any kind and did believe in liberal democracy and individual freedom, but was against what's called income inequality, where you have very few people at the top doing very well, while the rest of the country struggles just to survive.

TR, believed that government could come in and help close that income gap and allow for more Americans to succeed economically in America and that government could help people do that, while retaining the great American progressive values that he believed in as a Progressive: like work, production, economic freedom, and individualism.

So based on that had President Teddy Roosevelt not had gotten his Square Deal through Congress and then later the New Deal in the 1930s, maybe America thanks to the income inequality back then and then later the Great Depression, becomes a socialist state. 

People's World: Rosana Cameron- 'Call Me a Communist'

Source:People's World- A rally for Communists?
"As an activist in my early 20s, I didn’t know much about what communism really was; all I’d heard was they were bad people that could hurt you and your loved ones. Being active in the Chicano student movement, I came across a member of MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztl├ín) who mentioned to me that the Communist Party USA was giving a class on Marxism and asked if I was interested in going.

On the first day, the teacher talked about why there were rich and poor people. He said the reason there were poor people is because those that own the manufacturing companies, businesses, and natural resources (the “means of production,” as I learned that afternoon) took advantage of those that worked for them by paying low wages while making lots of money selling the products workers made. As a simple example, he explained how it might cost a company $0.50 to make a pair of shoes, but it would then turn around and sell the pair for two, three, or more times that much. The raw materials were infused with the labor power of the workers to create new value. That new value was the source of profit. “That makes sense,” I thought to myself."

Read more of Rosana Cameron's piece at People's World

Source:Now This World: Jules Suzdaltsev- 'Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference?'- Seriously, what's the difference? No for real, I really want to know. 
"There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference? Find out in this quick explainer!"

I'm going to respond to both Rosana Cameron and Jules Suzdaltsey about their interpretations of communism and then talk about what I think about both of those definitions.

According to Rosana Cameron, she's a Communist because she's seen how the rich hurt the poor and how they've been allowed to have so much, while the poor have so little and that the state should own the means of production to correct what she calls that injustice.

According to Jules Suzdaletsey, we've never had a communist state anywhere in the world. Even though Russia ( when it was the Soviet Union ) was controlled by the Communist Party with no opposition parties. China, ( as the People's Republic ) is controlled by the Communist Party. Cuba, since 1959 has been controlled by the Communist Party and I could go on.

He also said that these countries that are supposedly run by Communists, are really socialist states where the state is in control of everything. But if you listen to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez today, ( two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress ) their vision of socialism is very democratic and not authoritarian at all. Where the state would be in control of the wealth in society to be used to make sure that everyone has the basic necessities in life.

So are Socialists authoritarian or not and if they are and it's really the Communists that are accountable to the people, then how come Democratic Socialists don't call themselves Communists? How come all of these so-called communist states don't just call themselves socialist states, instead of communist states? There's a major contradiction there.

This is one reason ( and just one ) why Socialists and Communists have always represented the Far-Left in America and a lot of the developed, democratic, Western world, along with the fact that people in these countries tend to like their freedom and like having money and not living in deep poverty, but that Socialists have always had a hard time explaining what they actually believe and what it means to be a Socialist.

Which is why you basically now have these two competing wings in the socialist movement in America where the so-called democratic wing of the socialist movement are called Democratic Socialists, ( at least by the people who have the balls to call themselves Socialists, not Progressives or Liberals ) with Communists still trying to figure out where to they go from here. They no longer seem interested in overthrowing the U.S. Government and Constitution through revolutionary force and replacing our liberal democracy with a socialist state, but they're not ready to completely get in bed with the Bernie Sanders of the world and call themselves Democratic Socialists either.

Just once I would like to hear an actual Communist come out of the closet ( so to speak ) and say: "damn right, I'm a Communist and this is why." And then explain how communism is different from what's called democratic socialism and how Communists are different from Democratic Socialists. We're now at a point politically in America ( thanks to the Millennial Generation ) where politicians, especially young politicians ( depending on where they live ) can admit and self-describe their politics as Socialist, ( or Democratic Socialist ) with those politicians going out-of-their-way to make to clear that they're Democratic Socialists and not Communists, but we still don't hear any politicians or well-known leftist political activists calling themselves Communists. 

Monday, July 22, 2019

ACLU: Sam Walker- 'Conscientious Objectors'

Source:ACLU- The ACLU, standing up for free speech during World War I
"The ACLU was born out of World War I and the repression that resulted when the U.S. joined the fight."

"On the night of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made the trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol for a special session of Congress that he convened. In one of the most consequential speeches in U.S. history, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war that would take the country into the Great War’s killing fields in Europe. During his address that night, President Wilson called Americans to arms with the memorable pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

Read more from Sam Walker at the ACLU Blog

Source:Cardozo Life: 'ACLU in American Life'- NYU Professor Norman Dorsen 
"The ACLU began by defending conscientious objectors during World War I and went on to oppose Japanese internment, to defend the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and to represent abortion rights activists. NYU Professor Norman Dorsen, who headed up the ACLU for many years, is featured in this piece." 

In a liberal democracy like America, it's not enough to have a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee all of our individual rights like free speech, right to privacy, property rights, and other right, you need private organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union there to defend Americans individual rights, simply because you have politicians and other government officials who don't believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are more than willing to impose their religious and cultural values on others and do with through government force. You also need judges and courts who believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, otherwise organizations like the ACLU and others won't be that powerful. 

From Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

That's what the ACLU is about which is the right for all Americans from people who are as Far-Left as Communists who hate our liberal democracy and U.S. Constitution, to people as Far-Right and racial and ethnic Nationalists who believe that our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to European-Americans who are English and Protestant, or other Northern European Protestants.

Anyone can defend popular speech in America, because who could possibly offend by doing that? Unpopular nerds or radicals who simply don't fit in with the popular political or social class? It's the people who go out on a limb and take a stand even if that stand is radical and even hateful that need the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, a functioning court system, and private individual liberty groups like the ACLU who need individual rights to be protected just as much, if not more than the popular political and social classes in America. 

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Bill Whittle: Scott Hahn- 'Why DonaldTrump: Told 'The Squad' of 4 U.S. Lawmakers to Go Back Where They Came From'

Source:Bill Whittle- The so-called Squad, in the U.S. House of Representatives
"President Trump told U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib -- known collectively as 'The Squad' -- to go back where they originally came from and to fix the broken, corrupt governments in those places before they try to fix America. What did he mean by this, and why does he continue to go after a handful of rookie lawmakers as part of his effort to get re-elected? Bill Whittle explains."

Source:Bill Whittle: Scott Hahn-'Why Donald Trump: 'Told 'The Squad' of 4 U.S. Lawmakers to Go Back Where They Came From'

What does it mean to be an American, which I guess is the question for this piece, if you don't want to concentrate on just the pure fascism ( if not racism of ) of President Donald Trump's tweets about those four leftist Democratic Representatives last Sunday.

If you were born in the United States even if both of your biological parents weren't, or emigrated illegally, you're an American citizen. If you emigrate to America legally, ( like Representative Ilhan Omar ) you're an American citizen. What if any of these female Reps. told Donald Trump to go back to Germany or Scotland, ( where his ancestors are from ) he's second generation on his father's side with his paternal grandparents coming from Germany: how would The Donald and his 60 million supporters handle a Far-Left, minority Democratic woman asking him that question? Of course they would accuse her of being a racist. so how is President Trump telling these Reps. to go home, ( as if they're from any other country ) any different?

Americans are Americans regardless of their political ideology. You can always question their patriotism and how much they may love or hate America, depending on how they talk about America. But similar to what state someone lives in, it doesn't matter how much they love or hate their state that determines how much they love their state, but what state they live in that determines their residency. In Donald Trump's small, Pluto size mind and world the only real Americans are the people who agree with him on everything. And everyone else are the Un-Americans who should go away. And that's just not the real America and what makes us the great liberal democracy that we are. But instead some Russian or Saudi fascist state that Donald Trump wants us to be. 

Murray Rothbeard: Ross Perot- 'Was The Original Donald Trump'

Source:Murray Rothbeard- One of Ross Perot's candid quotes 
"How did the media Discredit Ross Perot? What tools did they use?
Music by Chuki"

Source:Murray Rothbeard: Ross Perot- 'Was The Original Donald Trump'

Source:BBC- "Democrat Bill Clinton (L), Independent Ross Perot (C) and President George H.W. Bush"
I realize this guy on YouTube is not the best source ( and perhaps not even a credible source to talk about Ross Perot ) but I heard this comparison between Perot and Donald Trump last week and I just feel the need to correct the record on it. 

Ross Perot, was a serious, very intelligent man both as it related to business and not just one of the original new-tech leaders, but innovators when it came to new technology with his computer company.

The only time Donald Trump has ever made any real money on his own in his life ( without screwing other people out of their money ) is with his reality TV career that started 15 years ago. We're talking about a man who went bankrupt multiple times both with his business, as well as personally, to the point that back in the early and mid 90s he was borrowing money from his successful brother, to pay his personal bills. Back then he was going through both a bankruptcy and second divorce and couldn't pay his own bills, let alone run his own business.

What Perot and Trump have in common is that trade was a major part of their presidential campaigns. And it's an issue that they both seem to understand pretty well.

But Ross Perot in 92, was running on fixing the debt and balancing the budget with a serious plan to do both.

Donald Trump, is the self-proclaimed King of Debt and for good reasons: his personal and business bankruptcies and thanks to his borrow and spend, supply side fiscal policy that assumes his trillion-dollar tax cut ( mostly for wealthy investors and business ) is going to pay for itself, ( even though there is no real evidence of that ) America is going run a trillion-dollar budget deficit for the first time since 2013 again. Remember, President Barack Obama, inherited a trillion-dollar deficit and got that cut in half during his eight years as President. President Trump, is about to double the Obama deficit.

Ross Perot, wad a good, funny, charming, intelligent, successful man who not only knew how to work with others, was good at it and perhaps even enjoyed working with other people. Donald Trump, believes that anyone who disagrees with him on anything, not only hates him, but hates America and therefor is Un-American. Who doesn't even read his own intelligence reports or believe them that were prepared by his own National Security Council that he personally appointed. Does he ever read anything that he didn't personally write, or that's not one of his speeches?

Ross Perot, in 1992 and 96 was talking about a red, white, and blue America and bringing all Americans together. Donald Trump and just look at this week apparently believes that ethnic and racial minorities are Un-American and shouldn't be American citizens. At least minority women in the House of Representatives.

So sure, Ross Perot and Donald Trump are both outsiders who took on the political establishment in America and made very successful runs at the presidency, with The Donald even winning his election. And they were both suspicious of free trade. But that's really all that they have in common. We don't even know for sure if President Trump was ever a billionaire or is currently a billionaire and might only be worth a 10th of what he claims, because of all of his business and personal debt. And as a result they really shouldn't be compared with each other at all.

When you think of Ross Perot, you should look at Representative John Anderson who made a successful Independent run for President in 1980. And look at Neo-Confederate Governor George Wallace, if you want to compare another major presidential candidate with Donald Trump. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Last Week Tonight: Ayn Rand- 'How Is This Still A Thing?'

Source:Last Week Tonight- Objectivist author Ayn Rand
"Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," is still kind of a thing. How?"

Source:Last Week Tonight: Ayn Rand- 'How Is This Still A Thing?'

Source:All Top- "Author Max Barry once described reading Ayn Rand in this way,” I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection ..."
I'm not an objectivist and not a believer in objectivism, but I am a believer in individualism and if that makes me a selfish asshole or douchebag, ( as the guy said in the video ) then that's his damn problem, but not mind.

Ayn Rand, is not the mother of individualism or the creator of it, but perhaps is the strongest and most vocal advocate of it, which is why Liberals, ( such as myself ) Conservatives, Libertarians, even Socialists with her strong advocacy for feminism and the right to privacy can find something about Ayn that they can actually like, because most of us at least ( who aren't Socialists or Christian-Nationalists ) believe in some degree of individualism and freedom of choice and don't expect big government to even try to do everything for us.

Ayn Rand is sort of like ice cream or cookies: almost everyone can find something about her that they like. Almost everyone has a particular type of cookie or ice cream that they like and everyone has something about Ayn that they like: from 1960s Hippies to modern day Hipsters who don't want to be part of the establishment and want to be able to live their lives. To Christian-Nationalists who perhaps want big government to live in our homes and tuck us in at night so we're not living what they could call immoral lives, but like Ayn's advocacy for economic freedom.

Even Socialists who believe in women's reproductive rights and feminism, can find something that they like about Ayn Rand. To Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservative-Libertarians who believe in individual freedom and individualism and don't want big government running our lives for us at all.

Almost everyone has something about Ayn Rand that they like or can like, just like most of us have a cookie or flavor of ice cream that we like as well. Because Ayn believed in personal choice, reason, objective thought, free will, free expression, American liberal values that most Americans still love. While collectivists on both the Far-Left and Far-Right can find a lot about her that they hate, because her whole message was about individualism and individual choice, instead of a government collective deciding what's best for us. 

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

CSM: Stephen Humphries- 'How To Save Politically Mixed Marriages in The Donald Trump Era'

Source:CSM- Author Jeanne Safer: with a book about politically mixed marriages in the Trump era
"Psychotherapist Jeanne Safer has parlayed her own experiences and those that have been shared with her into a book I love you, but I hate your politics: How To Protect Your Intimate Relationships in a Poisonous Partisan World."

Read the rest ( if you can ) at CSM

Source:TYT: Cenk Uygur & Anna Kasparian- 'Americans Unwilling To Marry Outside Their Politics'- Different race, ethnicity, religion, culture, no problems! But marrying someone from different politics, that's a whole new issue.
"A very low percentage of Americans are married to spouses that have opposing political views from then. The number of interracial couples may soon exceed those with differing politics. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“Would you believe us if we said you're about as likely to marry someone of a different race as you are someone from the other political party?

Buried inside a new Pew Research Center survey on political polarization is this nugget: Americans say they are overwhelmingly married to people with whom they agree politically. In fact, just 9 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats say their spouse or partner is a member of the other major political party.

By contrast, Pew estimated in 2015 that 6.3 percent of Americans in 2013 were married to a spouse of a different race. But that number is climbing. It was less than 1 percent in 1970, but about 1 in 8 marriages in 2013 (12 percent) were interracial.

Bipartisan marriages still far outnumber gay marriages -- another fast-increasing kind of marriage, thanks to its nationwide legalization in 2015. Gallup data suggests about 1 million American adults are married to a spouse of the same gender; but that's still less than half a percentage point of the entire U.S. adult population.”

I'm not one of these doom and gloomers who think America is going to hell and as a result we're about to seem some new civil war in this country, but whenever I see stories that Americans aren't even willing to be friends with other people, because they either support President Donald Trump's nationalist philosophy or don't, that leads me to believe that maybe America is in danger of it's first civil war, at least since the 1960s, if not since the 1860s with the American Civil War.

I guess all of this would be easy for me to say, because I can  be completely philosophical and theoretical as someone who is not married. So taking my advice on this, might be lack asking your plumber for a medical opinion about cancer or whatever the disease or medical condition that you want to learn about. But if successful marriages has anything to do with commonsense, ( and considering 1/2 American marriages end in divorce, that would suggest no ) I believe there are some commonsense suggestions that could help people who are married to someone who is pro-Trump or not, when you're on the other side of that issue.

Suggestion one: don't discuss politics that relates to Donald Trump at all, at least in a serious way. If there's anything that both spouses agree on when it comes to Donald Trump where one spouse hates everything about him, but the other spouse likes PresidentTrump's economic polices, but hate his tone, rhetoric, character, ( which is common with Trump supporters on CNN ) then maybe talk about what you both don't like about the President. And if there's anything that you both like about him, maybe you both find him to be funny and entertaining and neither one is a fan of political correctness, then concentrate on that.

Suggestion two which goes back to suggestion one: don't talk about politics at all, or at the very least don't make it personal and instead listen to each other and find out why your spouse believes what they believe. You probably still won't agree with your spouse, but maybe you can at least understand why your spouse believes what they believe. And don't make your political discussions personal, but instead intellectual and factual. But the better idea is to not talk about divisive politics at all and instead remember what you love about your spouse and why you married your spouse in the first place. ( Like your spouse's money, body, business connections, or perhaps other reasons )

Again, as someone who has never even been married, ( knock on wood: maybe there is a God ) I think some of my suggestions sound like a local auto mechanic giving a lecture about brain surgery, ( what the hell does that guy know: if I ever want his opinion on anything, it will be about cars ) but if marriage has anything to do with life and successful life, then successful marriages are about commonsense.

For people who aren't hardcore political junkies ( meaning they actually have lives ) getting through the Trump presidency even if your spouse disagrees with you on President Trump should be relatively easy.

But for people who don't have lives outside of politics, I suggest you find that life outside of politics and remember that FNC, MSNBC, and CNN aren't the only TV channels and you can do other things together and concentrate on what you have in common and why you're married to that person in the first place.