John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The Atlantic: McKay Coppins- Is Trumpism The New Conservatism?

Source: The Atlantic
Source: The Atlantic: McKay Coppins- Is Trumpism The New Conservatism?

To answer McKay Coppins question: no, Trumpism is not the new conservatism. And why do I say that? Well, because it's true and if you want more of an explanation than that, I don't blame you.

What is Trumpism? Trumpism by itself is not a political ideology. It's really whatever reality TV addict Donald Trump says and makes it at any given time. The man does have nationalist-authoritarian leanings as President and in that sense is a strong cultural warrior. At least officially and when he's talking to his supporters. But put him back in the real world where little things like facts matter, and arresting and locking up your political opponents, comes off as extreme even from your own fellow Republicans, where Latinos and Muslims, aren't seen as invaders, women aren't seen as property, ( and I'm thinking of Judge Roy Moore ) get Trump away from his political and cultural cult and in touch with real thinking people where again facts and reality matter and the man can actually come off as reasonable and even intelligent.

Return Donald Trump back down to Planet Earth and America where most Americans live, Big Don comes off as more reasonable. He can even come as a an intelligent thinking human being who doesn't have a Breitbart/John Birch Society/Alex Jones worldview that is only shared by people who left Planet Earth for a better life on another planet that hasn't been discovered yet. Talk about space cases, some Trump voters look like poster children for space cases.

On the other hand, Donald Trump's supporters simply see things that aren't there and that no intelligent person could possibly view as being reality. And yet they believe and say those things anyway. Like Barack Obama being an African-Muslim Socialist from Kenya, who is an illegal alien. And unfortunately that is just one example of how Trump voters are so far out of space from reality, it's as if Charlie Manson's Manson Family cult came back to life and they were part of that and managed to get some of the extra LSD that was left behind after the Manson Family soldiers were all arrested. Some Trump voters at least come off ass hardcore cult members, who've mentally left Planet Earth and have invested so much in there dear leader that everything the man says they treat as gold no matter what the man says.

Trumpism itself is not much more than a one-,man reality show who says whatever comes to his mind and at any given second. A lot of what he says is what the last person he spoke to told him to say or what Far-Right media like Breitbart and Fox News, is telling him to say. But nationalism is a political and cultural tribalist philosophy that puts one group of citizens in any given country, against everyone else. And people who disagree with them must be traitors. People who criticize the dear leader is a criminal who should be locked up. The fringe part of Donald Trump's base that are in the South and rural America for the most part, are Nationalist-Tribalist's who view Democrats as Un-American and as traitors. View the Democratic Party as a criminal organization that should be put out of business. Women as second-class citizens, non-European-Americans as Un-American and as traitors. The Alt-Right in America.

What I just laid out is not conservatism. Duh! Where in any part of The Conscience of a Conservative ( written by Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater ) the unofficial if not official handbook as well as playbook, the definition of what conservatism is and what it means to be a Conservative, do you see any of these cultural war tribalist issues and this McCarthyite tactic of putting one group of Americans against the people they would call the real Americans as if not every American citizen is not a real American, against everyone else in the country. People who simply disagree with the McCarthyite's or today the Trumpian's. Conservatism is about limited government and conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Not about putting one group of Americans against everyone else.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Socialism Isn't Cool

Dave Rubin makes one mistake about socialism up front which is common for people on the Right especially, but sometimes on the Left as well, which is to lump all Socialists into one political box. As if all Democrats fit into one political box, or all Republicans fit into one political box, or even all Libertarians fit into one political box. There are Socialists and then there are Socialists. The Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats, the democratic wing of socialism and then there are Communists, which make up the authoritarian wing of socialism.

Where Dave Rubin is right is that all Socialists have one thing in common. Which is what they view as the greater good and collective, is more important than the individual. That individual freedom is somehow bad and perhaps even racist, if it means that there are people who do very well economically and live well in society, when there are poor people who's struggle just to survive. Perhaps skip meals so their kids can at least have something to eat that day. That is what Socialists believe that what you should do instead is to see that all the recourses in the country are divided up equally so no one is rich and no one is poor. Even if that means putting strict limits on individual economic freedom and even individual personal freedom.

The title of Dave Rubin's video is "Socialism Isn't Cool" and yet he doesn't mention why socialism is not cool, but instead just mentions the negative aspects of socialism and socialist countries like Venezuela. Tell that to the millions if not tens of millions of Millennial's who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries for President and the perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters who voted for Jill Stein for President during the 2016 general election. To them, socialism is the new awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist to them, must be a racist or a bigot or someone working to protect the man and keep women and minorities down. To them socialism is like totally awesome or whatever and anyone who is not a Socialist is not awesome.

My issues with socialism gets to what Dave Rubin laid out which is the collectivist nature of it. That it's somehow unfair and selfish for individuals to get a good education and then take those skills to the private market and imply them and be rewarded handsomely for them. But what they may never understand is that once you discourage wealth, opportunity, success, and individualism, you get a hell of a lot less of it and leave yourself less resources to help people who for whatever reasons aren't doing well in society. And you also leave yourself with a lot less innovation and creativity, because people are left to wonder why they should do well in school and at work, when big government is just going to take most of their resources from then to subsidize people who aren't doing well.

You want a free developed society with as many people as possible doing well in life, then you have to subsidize and promote the things that make freedom and success possible. Which is education, opportunity, equality under law, equal rights, success, and yes wealth. Which is what you don't get in a socialist society whether it's a communist society like Cuba and now Venezuela which essentially functions as a one-party unitarian communist state, or a social democratic society like Britain where even when the Conservatives are in charge individualism and individual freedom, is discouraged and even punished for the sake of the collective. 

Monday, February 26, 2018

The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews Interviewing Dr. Michael Shermer- Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things

Source: The Thinking Atheist- Dr. Michael Shermer, is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine 
Source: The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews Interviewing Dr. Michael Shermer- Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things

Why smart people believe stupid things? Perhaps a better question would be do these smart people actually believe these stupid things, or are they ( pardon my French ) bullshit artists? People aren't necessarily good or bad because they're smart or even stupid. There not necessarily honest or dishonest because they're smart or stupid. They're Saints who are smart ( not necessarily in New Orleans ) and there Devils who are smart. ( Especially in New Jersey ) There are smart people who are honest like the late Dr. Martin L. King and there are smart people who are bullshit artists. Take cult leader and serial murderer Charles Manson.

There morons who are honest and where you know exactly what they think or don't think all the time. Seem to have this hellbent desire and lifelong quest to broadcast to the world how stupid they are. Donald Trump, might be a good example of that at least when it comes to government and public policy and his lack of knowledge of those issues. And there morons who are also dishonest which really makes them dangerous. Because they not only know very little if anything that is important at least., but they lie about what they actually think about those issues that they've somehow managed to get themselves involved in. Perhaps they have friends who feel sorry for them and decided to bring into their fields. Again, Donald Trump would be an excellent example of this. At least when it comes to government and public policy.

President Trump not only has a horrible habit of saying things that aren't true, but when he is clearly contradicted by people who even work for him, then he tries to deny and hide that he previously held stupid positions and made stupid statements before. Even when it's obvious that he did. And not to pick on our dear President who I don't view as a moron generally. But when it comes to public policy and government, it's hard to name a time in the history of the world, at least in America where you had a President or public official who knew so little about what they actually spoke about and positions that they took and then lied so much about what they actually thought.

When you see smart people say stupid things, here's a suggestion. Question whether they actually believe what they're saying. Especially if they're in politics either as a politician or as a candidate. Also look at the audience that they're speaking to and at risk of being insulting look at the intelligence level of the people the politician or wannabe politician is speaking to. I don't mean give everyone in the audience IQ tests. ( Unless you have way too much free time on your hands ) But look at what they believe and what they think, political and social positions that they've made in the past and take now.

Because the politician might believe the people they're speaking to are morons and are dumb enough to believe him or her when they agree with the groups they're speaking to. Which is how I look at Donald Trump. Not as someone who is a moron in general, but as someone who views his base as morons and as people who'll believe whatever the hell he tells them. And who takes their side simply because he believes he needs their political support. 

Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source: The Film Archives-
Source: The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I'm quick enough to understand what she's saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn't be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille's politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, than that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn't be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don't believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would've been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Politics & Prose: John Leland- 'Happiness Is A Choice You Make'

Source: Politics & Prose-
Source: Politics & Prose: John Leland- 'Happiness Is A Choice You Make'

I believe in the cliche life is a highway and then add Tom Cochrane's line, I want to ride it all night long. On the highway of life ( to use a another cliche ) you make a lot of turns, stops, you accelerate, you stop for gas and just to get a bite to eat and get some rest.

Imagine driving from Washington to Los Angeles in a cross-country trip. Ordinary if you don't run into bad weather, car trouble, have any major accidents, decide to go for a joy ride after getting loaded one night on one of your stops in St. Louis let's say, and you're a good driver, this cross-country trip should take you about 7-10 days. Well, imagine your life being a a cross-country trip or a trip around the world but it takes you about 80 years ( give or take ) instead and not because of car trouble or any of the other factors that I just mentioned.

That is what life is which is a very long journey if you live a normal life in years. And on that journey you're going to have a lot of ups and downs. Richard Nixon once said that he wanted to die with at least one more victory than defeat. Well, hopefully life for you will be a lot better than that and the best thing about this is that you have complete control over your own life once you move out from your parents and start driving on your own highway of life with the ability and freedom to make your own decisions. But even before you move out from your parents as a young adult you still have a lot of freedom to make your own highway and ability to decide what that journey will be for you.

Do you finish high school, to use as an example. Do you do well in high school which allows for you do be able to go to college. If you go to college, do you do well in college. Do you stay out of trouble as a youth or get into trouble on a regular basis. These are all choices that we make as children, adolescents, young adults, full adults, and moving forward. It's up to us to make either good decisions or bad decisions with our own lives and then we have to live with the consequences of our own decisions for good and bad, or for in-between.

In a free society like a liberal democracy like America, we all have choices that we make in life. The question is what kind of choices do we make. If you have not just a habit of making good choices like you just happen to be very lucky and perhaps you should take that luck to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but you tend to make good choices and decisions because you've decided to based on good information and facts instead of flipping a coin, drawing straws, you're going to be happy in life. At least compared with a screwup who acts on impulse, or doesn't care about anyone other than them self, perhaps lost their brain somewhere and never went back to look for it.

To achieve happiness in life you have to figure out what makes you happy. What you're good at and what you want out of life. And then make the right decisions to accomplish those things. Instead of sitting on your ass and expecting happiness to pick you up off your couch or getting lucky. The ultimate investment in life is your own life. The more you put into it, the more you'll get back and the happier you'll be. You only get out if your investments what you put in them.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Richard Nixon Foundation: Pat Buchanan- 1968: The Year The Silent Majority Was Born

Source: Richard Nixon Foundation-
Source: Richard Nixon Foundation: Pat Buchanan- 1968: The Year The Silent Majority Was Born

I believe you have to understand the 1960s and 1967-68 especially to understand the great political comeback of Richard Nixon and the rebirth of the Republican Party. Once you know what this time was and what it was about and how it benefited Richard Nixon you'll also understand how brilliant of a politician and political strategist that Nixon really was. Nixon is in the same class as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt, when it comes to great politicians in American history. Perhaps smarter than all of then including FDR and Bill Clinton.

Where I agree with Pat Buchanan is that in 1967-68 America did feel like it was falling apart. The whole country seemed like it was pissed off. Riots and protests all across the country. Dr. King's nonviolent civil rights movement seemed to be going out of style even within the African-American community with the rise of the militant socialist Black Panthers. Millions of Baby Boomers of all races and ethnicities coming of age in the 1960s and seeing an America they didn't want and stood up to demand change across the country. People who tended to agree with Dr. King on the issues that his movement was addressing, but were primarily campaigning against the Vietnam War and what they saw was a self and racist American capitalist economic system.

By the time we get to 1968 the late 1950s is only ten years before 68 and yet America was and looked completely different as a country and not just because of color TV, but the music was not recognizable from the 1950s, the movies and the language and culture in the movies was completely different. Protesting and especially rioting in the streets and doing it in big cities like Detroit, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, just wasn't done in 1957 or at any point in the 1950s for the very most part. But you also didn't have a huge generation of angry Americans ( the Baby Boom Generation ) who were angry and wanted a different country and different system.

And during this whole period in the 1960s you had one political party in charge in America and in most of the country. Similar to what we have today but with large majorities in Congress. A Senate with 64 Democrats in 67-68, 243 or Democrats in the House, a Progressive Democrat as President in Lyndon Johnson. But with the angry Baby Boomers of all racial, ethnic, economic, and cultural backgrounds and the angry African-American community for good reasons, you also had the parents and grandparents of the Baby Boomers who were also angry, but they weren't angry at America. Just the leadership and party in power, as well as the new Counter Culture that seemed to be taking over America.

What we would call Reagan Democrats in the 1980s and today, were Nixon Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. Southern and Midwestern Democrats who voted Democratic most of their lives until 1966, 67, and 68 came around when they were looking for different political leadership. Back in 1968 the Republican Party even with their big gains during the 1966 Congressional midterms when they won 45 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate, was still primarily a Northeastern party, with some support in the Midwest and conservative-libertarian West.

And to get to why Richard Nixon was such a brilliant not just politician but political strategist which is just as important. Nixon understood that for the Republican Party to come back they were going to have to make gains in the Democratic Dixie South, while holding their ground in the Northeast, Midwest, and Mountain West. They were going to have to win over right-wing Southern Dixiecrats who opposed the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

 It started in 1966 with Congressional Republicans winning back over 40 seats in the House and a lot of them in the South and winning back 4 seats in the Senate allowing Congressional Republicans along with Dixiecrat Democrats, to block partisan progressive legislation that was proposed by President Johnson and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. And in 1968 thanks to the Vietnam War and the socialist New-Left that emerged in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party was a huge house that was hugely divided and their grand political coalition that kept them in power since the Hoover Administration in the late 1920s when they won Congress back finally broke.

With Richard Nixon again being the great politician and political strategist that he was being there to take advantage of that. Richard Nixon is a big reason why the Republican Party is southern and rural based in America. He's also a reason why Republicans struggle to win in big cities and big metro areas, because they're base is so dependent on right-wing Fat-Right in many cases Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestant aging men. But pre-1966 the Republican Party simply wasn't big enough to compete nationally with the Democrats and Richard Nixon changed that.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

The Atlantic: Opinion- David Frum: Conservatives Must Save The Republican Party From Itself

Source: The Atlantic
Source: The Atlantic: Opinion- David Frum: Conservatives Must Save The Democratic Party From Itself

I agree with David Frum's video here but I would put it differently. American politics works best at least in the past and perhaps now we would be better off with 4 party system instead of a two-party system, but back in the day American politics was at it's best when you had two strong political parties.

A Center-Left Democratic Party that believed in both private enterprise and even property rights, with a commonsense regulatory state and a safety net for people who truly needed it. As well as civil liberties, personal autonomy, personal freedom, civil and equal rights.

And a Center-Right Republican Party was a strong fiscally conservative party that believed in fiscal responsibility, as well as a private market that was pretty much unfettered other than some environmental and safety regulations. But that also believed in a level of personal autonomy and even personal freedom.

The Center-Left Democrats would lean on the side of personal freedom and civil liberties. While pushing for the safety net. The Center-Right Republicans would push for economic freedom, as well as a conservative culture, but wouldn't try to force that way of live on every American through government force.

Both party's were actually cold warriors and anti-Communists. Every American President that we had during the Cold War was an anti-Communist. American voters could count on Democrats to protect their civil liberties and personal freedom. American voters could count on Republicans to protect their economic freedom and property rights.

The old American political way of doing things wasn't a marriage made in Heaven or even an effective partnership. But two opposite sides there to protect what Americans truly wanted and needed. The right to be left alone and be able to live their own lives. Without big government trying to steal their wallets or bank accounts. Or breaking into our private homes because they don't like what we're doing there or who consenting adults were sleeping with.

That has all been blown up not just since Donald Trump moved into the White House, but going back to when George W. Bush moved into the White House. Not because of President Bush himself who was actually fairly moderate and Center-Right as President when it came to the Cultural War issues. As well as economic issues like education and immigration. But the parties have changed drastically. They've both become big government parties but in different forms.

In 2016 a Democratic Socialist almost won the Democratic nomination for President. The Democratic Party hasn't had a major Far-Left presidential candidate since Senator George McGovern won the Democratic nomination in 1972. But Senator Bernie Sanders came close. In 2016 the Republican Party not only had a major right-wing Far-Right Nationalist with authoritarian leanings, but Donald Trump is currently President of the United States. By beating a Center-Left pragmatic Progressive Democrat in Hillary Clinton.

What I'm saying here isn't so much what David Frum is arguing about the Republican Party should still matter and be saved by the Christian-Nationalists in the party. But really about how much the two major political parties have changed and that they no longer represent the mainstream so much as their fringes in the party who always threaten to either challenge their leadership and even leave the party, when a Democrat or Republican doesn't give them exactly what they want.  Leaving 40% of the electorate saying that they're not either a Democrat or Republican, because neither party represents what they really want and believe in.

Americans don't like big government, period by in large. Either trying to manage our economic affairs for us and even try to run our businesses. Or in our personal lives trying to manage how we live and what we do in our privacy. Which is why I believe if there is a time when both major parties could become not just weak, but perhaps irrelevant and maybe we do see two new major parties emerge with one being the old Center-Right Republican Party leaving the Republicans with just the Nationalists and Christian-Right. And leaving the Democrats with just the Socialists, both Democratic but thanks to ANTIFA Communist, that time is now. Unless the establishment's and leadership's of both party's reclaim their party's and start to take on their fringes. Even if they risk losing their positions in their party.
The Atlantic: David Frum- Conservatives Must Save the Republican Party From Itself

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- Who Were The Black Panthers? US History Review

Source: Hip Hughes-Afro-American Socialist Nationalists
Source: Hip Hughes: Keith Hughes- Who Were The Black Panthers? US History Review

The way I look at the 1960s when it came to these political revolutionary movements within the African-American community, was that there were three movements there.

You had the non-violent social democratic Martin L. King civil rights movement.

You had the Malcolm X power movement that wasn't about violence, but self-defense and self-empowerment of the African-American community.

And you also had a militant wing of this community that was was about empowering the African-American community, but was way to the left of Dr. King and Minister Malcolm X. People who were not just Socialists but in some cases self-described Communists.

I don't believe I put the Black Panthers in the same class as the IRA in Britain as well as Ireland, or Hamas in Israel and Palestine, as far as group that was not only a radical political organization, but also a terrorist organization. Or even The Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army in America. But they did have a military wing in it and would use violence if they thought it was appropriate. But they were a Far-Left socialist-communist political organization that wanted a new economic system and perhaps even form of government in America. They weren't as Far-Left as The Weather Underground who were literally trying to overthrow the U.S. Government. That was literally one of their goals, but they did share similar politics as The Weather Underground when it came to economics. 

Monday, February 19, 2018

David Von Pein: Q&A With President John F. Kennedy- April 19, 1963

Source: David Von Pein-
Source: David Von Pein: Q&A With President John F. Kennedy- April 19, 1963

The first questions in this presidential news conference asked to President Kennedy, was about Cuba. With someone actually asking President Kennedy did his administration have any plans to invade Cuba. As if President Kennedy would ever reveal to his plans or no plans to invade another country in public. Imagine if JFK said, "sure, we're going to invade Cuba. And we're going to do it Thursday afternoon at around 12PM coming from Miami. And we're going to send in a dozen fighter jets and a big Naval ship headed to Havana to take out the Castro Regime and anyone who tries to get in our way. So President Castro and your military, get ready for us because we're coming to get you." No responsible President in his right mind would ever make his military plans public before they were executed.

Tax cuts and economic policy generally, was a major part of the Kennedy Administration's agenda in 1963. Tax reform and lowering taxes across the board in exchange for eliminating tax loopholes to avoid deficits ( unlike a recent tax cut plan passed and signed into law ) since the American economy was till growing slowly in the early 1960s after getting out of the recession from the late 1950s. The top tax rate in 1963 was 90%. The lowest rate being 20-25% and if you're making what would be in today's dollars 40,000 dollars a year and you're paying 20-25% in Federal income taxes, plus 3-4% in Federal payroll taxes, plus state and local taxes, even with the tax loopholes back then you're still paying a lot in taxes on a very modest income. The tax reform plan that President Kennedy wanted, was finally passed out of Congress in 1964 under President Lyndon Johnson.

So-called Conservatives today ( borrow and spend supply siders, to me more accurate ) like to point to Jack Kennedy when they promote their tax cut and tax reform ideas. The difference being that JFK wasn't a supply sider. He didn't think a trillion-dollar tax cut would pay for itself because of the economic growth that it would generate. Especially on top of huge increases in Federal spending. He believed tax cuts if they were targeted right and encouraged spending in the economy could generate economic growth, but that those tax cuts should be paid for. JFK was a Liberal Democrat in the real sense and believed in fiscal responsibility as well as using government to encourage more independence, not discourage it. Which separates him from the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists today. And that tax cuts and Federal spending, needed to be paid for to avoid high budget deficits.

In case you don't own a calendar or have one on your cell phone and perhaps even don't have the time on your phone and have been using the same cell phone since 1997 or something, or have been vacationing in Mongolia, it's President's Day. Which is why I'm posting this piece about Jack Kennedy because he is my political hero. And when it comes to his politics and how he governed he's also my favorite President. I don't believe he's the best President of the United States, but he's my favorite in the sense of what he stood for and believed in. Which was liberal democracy and individual freedom for all. Not just for people who were born to wealth or have European ancestry, especially English ancestry who also happen to be male and Protestant. 

Saturday, February 17, 2018

CNN: Special Preview- The Radical Story of Patty Hearst: Story of The Symbionese Liberation Army

Source: CNN- CNN's Patty Heart documentary 
Source: CNN: Special Preview- The Radical Story of Patty Hearst

I believe to understand the kidnapping of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army, you have to understand the 1970s especially the early and mid 1970s. I don't want to sound overdramatic but America was at a breaking point at this point with a whole generation of Baby Boomers who were pissed off at America and the American system and wanted something different as far as our culture, way of life, and even form of government.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s you had this Marxist-Socialist terrorist group called The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society. They go out of business by the early 1970s and this new far left-wing group of Communists emerges in California called the Symbionese Liberation Army. Who believed wealthy people especially wealthy Caucasians and wealthy Caucasian men and wealthy corporations owned and managed by these men, were keeping poor Americans of all backgrounds, as well as minorities down. And they decided they would fight back and use violence to accomplish these political objectives. Which was to force wealthy Caucasian people to give money to the poor and feed the poor.

Patty Hearst the daughter of Randolph Hearst who owned a media empire in San Francisco, California which included the San Francisco Examiner newspaper and some TV stations, was the first major target and capture of this Marxist-Communist revolutionary group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. ( Or SLA ) The SLA kidnaps Patty Hearst in February, 1974 in order to get her father to give up 10s of millions of dollars and spend that money feeding the poor in Berkeley, California and other parts of Northern California. Kidnapping especially depending on how you treat your hostages, is about as radical and in some cases violent of a terrorist action that you can commit against anyone. But the SLA was as radical and violent of a political terrorist organization that we've seen in America.

The late 1960s and the 1970s back then, doesn't look much different from the radical left-wing groups that we see today with the so-called ANTIFA movement and these political correctness groups. Back then you had a very large generation of Americans who were pissed off at society and the government and wanted something radically different. With the so-called ANTIFA group now who also use terrorism to accomplish their Far-Left political objectives, you have a generation of Millennial's who are also pissed off at America and hate our form of government. What has changed is the media and the ability for radical groups to get their message out there and to get noticed.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Politics & Prose: David Frum- Trumpocracy

Source: Politics & Prose-
Source: Politics & Prose: David Frum- Trumpocracy

David Frum's Trumpocracy argues that thanks to President Donald Trump and perhaps other people and other things our liberal democracy and liberal democratic form of government is at risk. That Donald Trump represents a right-wing nationalist populist movement that puts their political and cultural values over everyone else and everything else. Including the U.S. Constitution. The one clue that you need to know about the Trump Nationalist Tea Party populist movement is not conservative, is that they're not traditionalists. They don't believe in conserving the status quo. They want to blow up the system and the Washington way of doing things and replace that system with their own political system which wouldn't be democratic.

Just as political and current affairs junkie, I hate it when political commentators and reporters, call people Conservatives when they're not conservative. The tax bill and budget that the Republican Congress passed in the last two months that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt and as a result we're looking at a deficit of over a trillion-dollars next year which would be our first trillion-dollar deficit since 2012. Conservatives don't borrow and spend and they don't blow up tradition  and the status quo. They protect and conserve the system that they're part of because it works and they helped design it. Donald Trump represents an anti-conservative movement that is nationalist, tribalist, and authoritarian, that believes their movement are the real Americans and everyone else are Un-American.

Donald Trump by himself I don't believe is as scary as people want to believe. As much as a wannabe nationalist dictator that he wants to be the problem is he operates in a system with checks and balances and still is part of a liberal democratic form of government and there real limits to what he can do by himself and he like no other President in American history is above the law. If he's guilty of anything illegal or impeachable we'll know about it and Congress will have an opportunity to act on that.

What people should really worry about are the people and voters that Donald Trump represents and the prospects for those people coming to power in America. Not just at the Federal level but the state and local levels which is more important, since a lot of members of Congress come from state and local government. And establish regimes that pass laws that make it close to impossible for members of the opposition to even vote. That is what we should worry about as people who believe in checks and balances and liberal democracy.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

C-SPAN: Molly Worthen- Lectures in History: 20 Century Fundamentalism

Source: C-SPAN-
Source: C-SPAN: Professor Molly Worthen- Lectures in History: 20th Century Fundamentalism

According to Wikipedia:

A fundamentalist, "is a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion."

That could cover any religion anywhere in the world but generally its's Protestants in America and Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia, parts of Africa who carry that label. Because they're not only religious fundamentalists, but people who are very political and use their religious fundamentalism as their political philosophy. You have countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia which officially is a monarchy, but they're also a theocracy and Islamic theocracy. As well as Iran that is official called the Islamic Republic of Iran. Before America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the Afghan Government was harboring terrorists who are partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan under the Taliban Regime was an Islamic state.

You move to America and we see Christian fundamentalists who are Protestants and tend to be Southern or rural as well as Anglo-Saxon with their ancestors coming over here from England in the 16  1700's. America is obviously a federal republic as a well as a liberal democracy with a strong separation of church and state, but if fundamentalist Evangelicals had their way in America they would create their religious theocracy, at least the fringe wing of the Christian-Right in America and establish a fundamentalist Protestant-Christian Anglo theocracy in America. Where women's place in America would be a lot different and a lot more restrictive. Homosexuality and pornography, would obviously be illegal. Certain types of speech when it comes to entertainment but also how people communicate in America would be illegal. Cursing to use as an example. And the argument for these restrictions would be that God wouldn't approve.

There fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Quada and ISIS in the Middle East and Africa, that are looking to take over territory and countries to establish their own religious theocracy. But there also fundamentalist Protestant terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan in America, that commit their racist terrorism in the name of God. As well as non-violent fundamentalist Protestant organizations on the Christian-Right in America that would like to see their religious and cultural values become law in America. Where everybody would be forced to live under those values. The Family Research Council would be an example of that. There was a famous Alabama Senate candidate last year whose governing political philosophy was what he called God's Law. His fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is Roy Moore's governing political philosophy.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't have any one particular owner. Not one religion or religious faction owns religious fundamentalism. Whether it's the Islamic-Right in the Middle East or the Christian-Right in America, or other religious factions in the world. They're just people who believe so strongly in their religious and cultural values and take the literal text of their religious books so literally and believe in those values so strongly and believe they're so great and right, that everyone else should not only live under those same values, but in some cases when it comes to theocrats believe that people in their communities  and country's should be forced to live under the same religious and cultural values.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Liberty Pen: The Vision of Barry Goldwater

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: Liberty Pen: The Vision of Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater's 1964's presidential campaign was monumental for several reasons. He lost 40 states, lost 61% of the popular vote, Congressional Republicans took a beating both in the House and Senate. Down to 140 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate after the 1964 general election. Those are the negative aspects of the Goldwater Campaign. The positive aspects are that Senator Goldwater was perhaps our only Conservative-Libertarian major party presidential nominee ( unless you include Ronald Reagan ) ever in American politics. He also won five Southern states something Republicans just didn't do at all pre-1968 with the exceptions of Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower.

As bad as a defeat 1964 was for the Republican Party it also served as a roadmap for how the GOP can become a national party again. Which was to go Dixie and out West and win a lot of elections in both regions of the country. I believe 1964, 66, and 68, is why the Republican Party now has a Christian-Conservative theocratic wing and a Conservative-Libertarian wing. And still has a moderate to progressive wing in the North and parts of the Midwest.

The only reason why from 1959-67 the Democratic Party had such huge majorities in Congress especially in the Senate, was because they were a Southern Dixiecrat Confederate Protestant party, with a Northern Progressive and in some cases Socialist base in it. The Democratic Party was all over the map ideologically in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. That is the only reason why they were so huge. Not because America was overwhelmingly liberal, or progressive, and especially not socialist. The Democratic Party was basically 3-4 different parties as part of one huge national party.

Richard Nixon who I believe before Watergate at least was one of our greatest politicians as well as strategists when it came to winning elections, understood in 1965-66 that if were to run for President and then at some point be elected President., he was going to have to have a competitive Republican Party that was no longer just based in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest. That they had to break the ideological and political stranglehold that the Democrats had in America and beat Democrats in Democratic territory. That meant campaigning and winning in the South and West. Especially in Congress but at the state level as well and Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign provided the opening for the rebirth of the Republican Party that we see today. The modern GOP that we see today the start of the new party happened in 1966 and 68.

As far as Barry Goldwater politically and his campaign. Had more Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians came into the party and they managed to hold on to the Conservative-Libertarians who bolted for the Libertarian Party in the early 1970s and in some cases are Independents today, the GOP would be a Goldwater-Reagan conservative party today. Instead of the Christian-Conservative Tea Party Nationalist populist party that we see today. That views candidates positions on pornography, homosexuality, and their religious views, as more important to them, than where candidates stand on economic or foreign policy. Taxes, regulations, education, etc. And they would be a party that could compete for non-European Protestant American voters. Instead of being a party that is dominated by one ethnic group, one race, one religion, and one region of the country, that is predominantly male.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: FDR Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism

Source: The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing Congress
Source: The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Peter Kuznick- Undoing The New Deal: FDR Created A Social Safety Net, Not Socialism

I actually agree with Paul Jay on something here. ( For a change ) President Franklin Roosevelt, his Administration and Congress, didn't create a socialist economic system in America for good reasons. They left the American capitalist system in place but added regulations to it, as well as creating a public safety net in America which is the New Deal. FDR and the Democratic Congress's back then didn't even create a social democratic system where workers get most if not all their employment benefits like pensions, health care, etc, from the national government but where business is in private hands. But a public social insurance system that people could collect from when they're out-of-work, or don't have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and aren't able to pay their bills. As well as Social Security for people who don't have a pension or a big enough pension. 

If you look back at it now and I would argue if you look at this in the 1930s, the New Deal was actually the centrist approach compared with what was also on the table and being offered in response to the New Deal. You have Hoover Conservatives and Libertarians arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't do anything in response to the Great Depression. And you had Socialists in some cases Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists who were arguing that the American capitalist system was the problem. And what should be done instead is to start nationalizing private industries, along with a socialist welfare state to provide workers the benefits that they had been getting from the private sector in the past. What FDR did was save the American capitalist system but make it better and stronger than it was before the Great Depression. 

In President Roosevelt's last term he moved further left on economic policy and became more interested in expanding the New Deal to create the Scandinavian social democratic welfare state. When he proposed his economic bill of rights that would've put the Federal Government in charge of guaranteeing workers benefits for all American workers. But what he was able to get passed into law as President was the New Deal which wasn't a welfare system, but and insurance system for people to collect from, but only when they need it. Similar to how Americans use their auto insurance when their car is in an accident. But not to help them pay their everyday bills. FDR was a Progressive because he was very pragmatic in how believed government should respond to problems in the country. But didn't govern in a way that would've put government in charge to solving every problem that every American ever faced. 

Monday, February 12, 2018

Skeptic Magazine: How Michael Shermer Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Source: Skeptic Magazine-
Source: Skeptic Magazine: How Michael Shermer Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

If you want to make this about religion, I come from a German-American family in Maryland, but my father is a hardcore card-carrying Atheist, who if anything has gone Communist when it comes to religion and perhaps other issues and perhaps would like to see religion outlawed in America as Communists tend to. Growing up my mother I believe was an Atheist as well, but not as hardcore and partisan about it. She's now officially an Agnostic herself. Or that is what she tells me. Germans tend to be Lutheran or Catholic, so I guess our family is unique when it comes to religion.

Myself having heard about religion being so great for people and people need to church to live well and only God can save you and all this nonsense ( outside of my family ) but on TV and in and around school and from friends families that I grew up with, I got the other extreme version of what religion is supposed to be about. So I get this argument and philosophy on one side that only morons and mental patients are religious, even though I knew a lot of intelligent people growing up who were religious. And then on the other side I get that religion is the only way of life and not just that but only moral people are religious and I know that's not true just from my own family alone and from other people I knew growing up weren't religious at all but were good productive people.

So that is why I'm not just an Agnostic but a skeptic as well. Not because I can't make up my mind or I don't want to offend hipsters who hate religion and see it as uncool or so not awesome or whatever and are people who claim to be spiritual but not religious as if there's any difference between being religious and spiritual. Like there's any difference between being tired or fatigue or two lemons, or crooks and liars. You might need Superman's X-ray vision to see any difference whatsoever. Or the fundamentalists who again believe only moral people are religious especially if they're not just Christian but Evangelical or Muslim when it comes to the eastern world.

I'm an Agnostic simply because like any other intelligent person who is of sound mind and has the right to free express them self who has ever lived on Planet Earth, (whether they care to admit it or not ) I literally don't know if there is a God or not. Or if there are multiple God's or not. Show me a God and I'll not only believe you but I'll believe there is a God. And then I might start believing in Santa Clause as well. While you're at that you might as well show me a plan for the Cleveland Browns to win a Super Bowl. I'll give you the rest of that decade to figure that one out and most of the next decade. Hopefully the Browns will have won another game by then. But on the other hand for you Atheists out there especially the hardcores, show me that there is no God and I'll become an Atheist. I'm an Agnostic because I'm skeptical I simply don't know if there is a God or not. It's that simple. 

Saturday, February 10, 2018

The Film Archives: Book TV- U.S. Representative Bobby Rush Interviewing Catherine Wilkerson: The Legacy of The Weather Underground & The New Left Movement of The 1960s

Source: The Film Archives-
Source: The Film Archives: Book TV- U.S. Representative Bobby Rush Interviewing Catherine Wilkerson: The Legacy of The Weather Underground & The New Left Movement of The 1960s

From Wikipedia about The Weather Underground.

"The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American militant radical left-wing organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party to overthrow the U.S. Government.[3]

"With revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s and took part in actions such as the jailbreak of Dr. Timothy Leary. The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization".[4]

The bombing campaign targeted mostly government buildings, along with several banks. The group stated that the United States government had been exploiting other nations by waging war as a means of solidifying America as a greater nation. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. No people were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.

For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying that it was "in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos". For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated that it was "in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi". For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State building, they stated that it was "in response to the escalation in Vietnam".[4]

The Weathermen grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) faction of SDS. It took its name from Bob Dylan's lyric, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", from the song "Subterranean Homesick Blues" (1965). "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows" was the title of a position paper that they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements[5] to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism".[6]

The Weathermen began to disintegrate after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973,[7] after which the New Left declined in influence. By 1977, the organization was defunct."

I think a good way to look at The Weathermen would be look to Fidel Castro's revolutionary movement in Cuba in the late 1950s. Except that the Castro Marxist-Communists in Cuba were looking to overthrow a dictatorial authoritarian regime there. But then what happened there is that they replace one dictatorial regime with another and turned Cuba into Marxist-Communist state which it still is today 60 years later. The Weathermen were looking to overthrow a liberal democratic government and society in America and replace it with a socialist society. Where things like racism, materialism, individualism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, masculinity, would be eliminated or those would be the goals of this group.

The 1960s is not just a fascinating time but a revolutionary time in America. The 1950s and 1960s are only one decade apart and the people who came of age in both decades are only a generation apart, but the two decades have almost nothing in common with each other and looked completely different culturally and politically. The difference between America and Russia, or North Korea and South Korea. Two very different looking and completely different societies. The 1950s was the Christian-Right's utopia where men worked and paid the bills. Women stayed home and raised their kids. Gays were buried in the closet culturally and perhaps you would need a rocket launcher back then to break the door down to let them out. African-Americans as well as other racial and ethnic minorities were treated like second-class citizens compared with European-Americans. Especially Anglo-Saxon men.

But thanks to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement African-Americans woke up and said they want their rights and would march for them and even give up their health and lives to get them. And had help from Caucasians who agreed with them and thought treating people as second-class citizens simply because of their race was evil. The Dr. King movement was the start of three left-wing movement's in America. The King movement was a social-democratic movement.

The Baby Boomers start to come of age in the 1960s and start the Hippie movement ( the real Liberals back then ) because the 1950s lifestyle that they were part of as kids wasn't good enough for them. They wanted the freedom to be themselves and be Americans which is what being an American is about which is the freedom for people to be themselves.

But then you have this radical socialist movement in America ( not to be insulting ) that believed the social-democratic movement of the 1960s led by Dr. King and others wasn't good enough and didn't go far enough. Dr. King and Social Democrats of the 1960s, weren't looking to overthrow the American Federal Republic and our liberal democratic system, but instead improve on it and establish an economic system that benefited more Americans so more Americans could benefit from our capitalist system.

What The Weather Underground and other New-Left socialist groups were looking to do was to overthrow the U.S. Government literally and create a socialist state in America. Some of these people might have been Democratic Socialists, but a lot of them were Communists like The Black Panthers and other groups who literally looking for revolution in America.

The 1960s and 1970s was a very violent time in America. We were going though terrorist bombings every week in the early and mid 1970s. Wealthy people were being kidnapped by Far-Left terrorists to get their money and then give it to poor people. Not everyone on the Left are pacifists. Only Social Democrats and some Democratic Socialists are. Communists are not obviously and believe violence even if they don't like it can be an effective and justifiable tool to accomplish their political objectives. And that is what The Weather Underground was which was a socialist militant political organization in America.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Movie Clips Trailer Vault: Groundhog Day 1993- Starring Bill Murray & Andie McDowell

Source: Movie Clips Trailer Vault-
Source: Movie Clips Trailer Vault: Groundhog Day 1993- Trailer

Groundhog is one of my favorite comedies from the 1990s as well as all time. Because the movie which obviously is not believable that a basically normal even narcissistic man like Phil Connors ( played by Bill Murray ) could literally live the same exact day over and over with only Phil making any changes for how his day goes, unless he's literally dreaming and just having the Hollywood dream of a lifetime. The movie is only about 1:45 minutes give or take, so why couldn't a man be sleeping have this dream going on his head while he's asleep.

The movie starts off with Phil who is a selfish unhappy narcissistic weatherman for a local TV station in Pittsburgh, which is a midsize city in a small market, with hopes of landing a job for a big station in a big market like New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, wherever it might be. But instead of getting a job like that he gets another assignment from his Pittsburgh station to cover another small-town event in rural Pennsylvania small-town Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Doing exactly what he doesn't want to do which is to cover small-town events with small-town people with Pittsburgh perhaps being the biggest city they've ever seen in their lives.

And narcissistic Phil sees himself as much bigger than that is unhappy and cynical the whole time he's there, until he realizes he's living the same day over and over again. Groundhog Day which is a one day event for everyone else in this town becomes a daily event for him. With no one else realizing what's going on with him. Because everything else is normal for them. But in Phil's case the same day starts over and over again every time he goes to sleep and wakes up in his hotel room.

Groundhog Day for me is the opportunity for one guy to live the same day over and over and learn from those experience and try not to make the same mistakes. Phil becomes a less sarcastic, cynical, narcissistic, selfish man as the movie moves along. Once he realizes he's in the same day over and over with no tomorrows. He also becomes adventurous knowing that there's basically no consequences for anything that he does. He can literally do whatever the hell he wants because he knows he'll start the same day over and over once midnight comes.

There's a scene in the diner where he drinks an entire pot of coffee and eats all of the pastries in the diner while he's smoking. He robs an armor truck. He jumps off a building. He drives a truck over a cliff intentionally. He drives a car on the train tracks and gets into a police chase and spends a night in jail. Of course, only one night because the same day just starts over for him once midnight comes. He also starts to get involved with his producer Rita ( played by the adorable Andie McDowell ) who doesn't like him and sees him as an egocentric selfish jerk. And spends each Groundhog Day learning about her and what she likes and is interested in and changes his behavior and interests just to get her to like him.

I prefer movies that are realistic, with great actors, great plot, cover original great writing, with clever wit with a cast that is also witty but can act as well. Groundhog Day has all of that except for the realism. Unless again we're talking about one man with a really strange dream while he's asleep that no one else could possibly know about. Groundhog Day is that 100 minute escape from reality when people simply just need an entertaining break and time to escape and is a very entertaining and very funny movie.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Bloodletters and Badmen: Virginia Hill- Mistress To The Mob

Source: Bloodletters and Badmen- Actress & Mob Lady, Virginia Hill-
Source: Bloodletters and Badmen: Virginia Hill- Mistress To The Mob

If you watch the movie Bugsy from 1991 with Warren Beatty playing Ben Siegel with Annette Being playing Siegel's mistress Virginia Hill, the movie portrays Virginia as much more than a mobster's mistress. Mistresses are common with mobsters and mobsters who are married with children is also common with both Italian and Jewish mobsters and perhaps Irish mobsters as well.

With the wives of the mobsters basically being babes in the woods. ( To use a Goodfellas line ) Basically unaware or ignoring what their husbands do for a living at least until their husbands go to prison for the first time. Then maybe, they get a clue that their husbands actually aren't actually construction workers or auto mechanics, legitimate businessmen, or whatever lie their husbands feed them as far as what they do for a living.

If you watch the movie Bugsy you see Virginia Hill as not just a mobster mistress but she basically handled the finances of Ben Siegel's Las Vegas operation and business. Siegel had the vision that Las Vegas would become a gambling and entertainment mecca that it is now today and has been since the 1960s if not farther back. But in the 1940s when Siegel got this vision Las Vegas was basically a pitstop four hours east of Los Angeles. Where people would go to gas up, get a bite to eat, perhaps stay for the night, but generally not a place where people would go to vacation. Unlike what it is now which is one of the top vacation towns in America.

Virginia Hill was not a babe in the woods. She knew who Ben Siegel was and that he was married with kids and that he was a New York mobster before they got involved out in Los Angeles. And didn't have any major issues with that. She was attracted to him physically, but his charm, his humor, and perhaps the most of all his power and wanted to be with him. And became his business partner and had a role in helping his build his Las Vegas casino which was the Flamingo.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Steve Davies- The Difference Between Classical Liberals & Libertarians

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Steve Davies- The Difference Between Classical Liberals & Libertarians

I'm cool with being labeled either a Classical Liberal or a Liberal. Just don't call me a Libertarian, if you what's good for you! ( Ha, ha ) I'm a Jack Kennedy/Tom Jefferson Liberal Democrat because I believe in the things that Dave Rubin and Steve Davies point out in this video, but I believe there is a a what I call decentralized limited government role in seeing that people who for whatever reasons especially adults who don't have the skills that allow for them to get a good job and be able to be self-sufficient economically, get an opportunity to get those skills so they can get themselves a good job and not need public assistance at all. As well as short-term financial relief while they're improving themselves economically.

As well as public education as long as it's run by the local government's so everyone is guaranteed at least a shot at getting themselves a good education. And not denied an education simply because private schools don't want to teach them. I believe people should be able to go the the best public that is available for them and if parents want to send their kids to a private school, that is their choice. Just as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for their choices. Instead of forcing kids to go to school simply because of where they live, instead of what's the best school for them.

I believe in national defense to protect the country from foreign invaders. I believe in public law enforcement to protect the public from predators, but not to protect people from themselves. I believe America should be working with our allies to keep our peace, but also to see that the world is as safe as possible for freedom and liberal democracy to survive.

And a regulatory state that is limited to only protecting consumers and workers from predators. Not to try to run private business and make private businesses semi-public utilities that are only privately run in name only.

I'm not anti-government, but anti-big government. I don't want government trying to run our personal and economic lives for us. Which is what the Far-Left and Far-Right have in common. They don't want people to be able to make their own decisions and don't trust and believe in individualism. The Far-Left Socialists and Communists, want big government to manage people's economic affairs for them. And in Communists case, they want big government to manage people's personal lives for them as well as their economic lives. The Christian-Right as well as Nationalists and in some cases as we're seeing in America as well as Europe as well now, Christian-Nationalists who want big government to manage people's personal lives. And don't want people who don't look like them and believe in the same things as they do to even be around and be allowed to live their own lives.

Where I separate from Libertarians is that I'm not an Anarchist. What you get from Libertarians today especially online is this believe that government in any sense is just corrupt, incompetent, unconstitutional, and that it's being existence in any form is enslaving the people. That taxation is theft even though being a citizen of a country is basically like being the member of a club. You pay for the services that you consume as condition of being a member of that club. And for whatever reasons Libertarians today don't seem to understand that.

I'm not anti-government or pro-small government. If I had it my way government would be a lot smaller than what Socialists in any form want and bigger than what so-called Libertarians want. I'm pro-limited government and limiting government to doing only what we need it to do. So in that sense I guess I would a moderate compared with Socialists and Libertarians, but to me that is just about being a Liberal. Taking positions based on the best available evidence at hand. Instead of taking all of my positions based on government either has all of the answers to solving problems or none of the answers to problem solving.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Dandelion Salad: Henry Wallace- Undoing The New Deal

Source: Dandelion Salad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Vice President Henry Wallace, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President from 1941-45. This was the term that President Roosevelt moved left on economic policy while still being a strong anti-Communist and anti-Fascist liberal internationalist on foreign policy. But on economic policy FDR moved left and moved past the New Deal that he got through Congress in the 1930s and instead of talking about the need for a public safety net for people when they needed it, instead started talking about what’s called welfare rights.

FDR’s Four Freedoms agenda was about guaranteeing that every American would have exactly what they need to live well in life and that these human services would be provided by the Federal Government. The Henry Wallace social democratic side of FDR comes out in the 1940s and FDR again came out in favor of moving past the safety net and instead creating a welfare that that is common in Britain and Scandinavia. Where the national government would become responsible for seeing that every America had a good education, a good home, enough food to eat, health care, health insurance, a good pension, and I could probably go on from here, but I’ll spare you.

Henry Wallace was the Bernie Sanders of the 1940s ideologically. A true Democratic Socialist who thought that the American capitalist private enterprise system, left too many people behind with few people who were rich financially, a lot of people in poverty, and a lot of people struggling just to pay their bills. The Great Depression of the 1930s did a lot to change how Americans looked at politics and economics.

Pre-Great Depression America was basically a libertarian utopia economically. With every little if any government involvement in the economy. But when you start to see 1/2 Americans living in poverty with food lines and food banks in every major city in the country and 1/5 Americans who are unemployed, most of the major banks failing in the country, you might start to reexamine your own politics and look at economics as well.

It is after the 1944 presidential election where Henry Wallace is no longer Vice President of the United States and becomes independent of the Roosevelt Administration politically with the ability to speak for himself and express his own politics politically and look at running for President himself in 1948. In 1948 Wallace runs for President himself and wins the Progressive Party nomination which was really a social democratic or democratic socialist party and runs for President against Progressive Democrat President Harry Truman, Republican Tom Dewey and Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. And America has a major Democratic Socialist presidential candidate to consider voting for.
Source: Cinema Insiders: Vice President Henry A. Wallace- Common Man Speech

Monday, February 5, 2018

The Economist: Srdja Popovic Interviewing Bassem Youssef- Revolution For Dummies

Source: The Economist- Bassem Youssef-
Source: The Economist: Srdja Interviewing Bassem Youssef- Revolution For Dummies

What I would say about this is that it takes a special type of narcissist to want to be a dictator, let alone actually be a dictator. Regardless of whatever authoritarian ideology you come from. Whether it's communism religious theocracy, militarism, oligarchy, nationalism, whatever it might be. It takes a special type of narcissist to believe that you're so great and you're like a God ( even if you're a Communist ) to believe you're so great and so brilliant, that you're not only great with your own personal life, that you're qualified to run the personal lives of everyone else in your country.

You believe you're so brilliant that you can make great decisions for people you've never met before and know what's best for perfect strangers. That you just don't just see yourself as a dictator, but a psychic and a mindreader as well. You see into the future and see what perfect strangers need and what they should think and how they should act and every other personal decisions that people make in their lives everyday. Maybe that is why Donald Trump admires dictators ( or at least Vladimir Putin ) because he sees himself that way as well.

Dictators might see themselves as brilliant and godlike before they come to power, but once it becomes clear even to the regime that things aren't going very well and country is now in bad shape that power is not just over centralized with the national state, but the dictator himself, the dictator has to find others to blame or the people and even his own regime will lose faith in their so-called great leader and look for other leadership. According to Fidel Castro it was never his fault that the Cuban Marxist economy was failing. It was always the fault of the Americans according to Fidel. The same thing is now going on in Venezuela where of course the Maduro Regime won't take the blame for their failing socialist economy that doesn't have the ability to provide their people with even the basic necessities of life like toilet paper.

Mark my words ( or some cheesy bullshit like that ) if the American economy were to start sliding in 2018-19, President Donald Trump won't take an ounce of responsibility for that. The economic downturn will become the Obama downturn according to President Trump and his Administration. Even though President Trump would've been in office for 1-2 years at that point and the Trump economic policy will have a;ready been in place. If the economy starts to fall, the deficit and debt will go up even more than it's expected to go up because of the new Tax law. And according to the small world or brain of Donald Trump, it will become the Obama deficit and debt.

And I know I'm using the word dictator with Donald Trump loosely. President Trump as much as he would like to be a dictator and have the U.S. Justice Department and White House Office of Legal Counsel, as his personal law firms and lawyers and the Congress as lackeys who are only in office to please their master which is what you see in Russia and China, even Donald Trump as President has real checks and balances in the U.S. Government. The independent Russia investigation is a perfect example of that. But Trump sees himself as a dictator and wants the power to be able to do whatever the hell he wants to protect himself and stay in power and damn the consequences. 

Saturday, February 3, 2018

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Banana Republicans

Source: The New Democrat- Bill Maher, on Banana Republicans 
Source: HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Banana Republicans

Watching CNN yesterday afternoon as I was working ( of course ) they were obviously covering the release of the Devin Nunes memo and they had Robert Baer on who was a career CIA intelligence officer before he retired several years ago that Donald Trump probably sees as some Marxist-Communist member of the so-called Deep State. Communists working for the CIA is about as common as Muslims and Latinos voting for Donald Trump in Alabama.

But that being said, Bob Baer was on CNN yesterday talking about the memo and he called it a piece of trash. Now, if he was part of HBO's special coverage of the Nunes memo or Showtime, he probably would've called it a piece of shit, because that is exactly what it is. All it is, is Trumpian talking points about the FBI and broader intelligence community in America and this conspiracy theory that Donald Trump and his supporters have that the intelligence community is out to get President Trump. When Bill Maher calls these Trump supporters of the House Banana Republicans, he ain't lying. These House Republicans on the Intelligence Community of all places, see themselves now as defense lawyers and operatives for the White House.

These intelligence reports and in Representative Devin Nunes's case the ( Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ) unintelligent memo that a seventh grader could've edited for their parents and found real holes in it, is nothing more than RNC/White House talking points. That says you have to back Presdent Trump at all costs even if it makes you look like an idiot, or worse a liar, worse than that a corrupt defense lawyer. This is not one of those partisan squabbles that you see all the time in Washington especially in Congress with Republicans and Democrats looking like they're fighting each other and accusing each other of cheating in a pickup basketball game or at recess. This is a Republican inter party squabble between House Republicans teaming up with the White House, against the Republican led and mostly Republican intelligence community. Washington Republicans vs. the CIA and FBI.

Representative Devin Nunes who has one of the most important jobs in all of Congress as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is nothing more than a hack defense lawyer for President Donald Trump. Nunes is a man that the House of Representatives is supposed to rely on for fair and accurate intelligence reports and oversight of the intelligence community. But what does he do instead? Go out of his way to make the intelligence community unfairly look bad because they have negative information about President Trump and his presidential campaign and it now looks like they were working with Russians to get Donal Trump elected President. So they've decided they have to make the intelligence community look bad at all costs so President Trump doesn't take them down in 2018.