John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

HBO: George Carlin- Death Penalty

Source:HBO- George Carlin: come and get it! 
"George Carlin talks about the death penalty, i didn't see this one up so i thought i might upload it ;] If you like George Carlin, you might want to check out Bill Hicks as well.

Taken from his 'Back in Town' special in 1996

This video belongs to HBO and is used under fair use law."

From HBO

So let see if I can't get  this straight: ( because it would be pointless for me to try to get it gay. LOL ) George Carlin, is in favor of the death penalty for bankers who launder money to drug dealers, but the drug dealers would be off the hook ( so to speak ) just as long as the drug dealers are killing each other. So it's OK if drug dealers sell their junk ( to keep it clean ) to our children and everyone else who wants to buy it, just as long as they kill themselves as well.

OK, that's an interesting take, but perhaps just as interesting as the politician who claims you can cut taxes deeply, increase government spending dramatically and that will balance the budget. Sounds like thinking  by people who are on marijuana highs and who perhaps got their marijuana from the same drug dealers who George Carlin wants to spare from the death penalty.

Or the other politician who promises the taxpayers a, b, and c, and perhaps the rest of the alphabet and that none of those programs will cost them everything. And at the same time they're also going to cut their taxes and balance the budget as well. No offense to George: but his death penalty argument sounds like it came from a politician.

I have an alternative: if we're going to have a death penalty at all, it will just be for the assholes. I know what you're thinking: America is full of assholes and there's not enough electricity, poison or ammo to execute every asshole in America. But hear me out: we use the death penalty primarily for the assholes who hurt innocent people simply because they don't like their race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, sexuality, hair color, complexion, shoes, money, etc. And even if with all the hate crimes in America, we're still talking about small percentage of the country. And we can even save the taxpayers some money here by giving them guns and telling them that they're just water guns and let them execute themselves.

This is probably not an argument from anyone who is ever going to get elected to anything ( without Russia's help ) anytime soon, but doesn't mean it's not worth considering. 

Dan Mitchell: 'Socialism Humor'

Source:International Liberty- Apparently you're not allowed to make fun of Socialists, unless everyone can afford to get the joke. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

“Given the misery that it has inflicted on the world, it’s just about impossible to think of socialism as a gift.

However, when I want new material for my humor collection, I think of socialism as the gift that keeps on giving. The ideology is such a failure that it creates a target-rich environment for satire.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell's Piece piece

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert: 'Democratic Socialist Ideas Are Mainstream'- I’ll give Bernie credit for one thing: he believes what he says.
 “Senator Sanders shrugs off Colbert’s suggestion that the word “socialist” taints progressive ideas like universal healthcare and tuition-free college.”

To make fun of Socialists and socialism is pretty easy: you imagine a bunch of people, especially college age people and people just outside of college, as well as 1960s hippies who still think they’re cool, because even though they now have gray hair, they have goatees or beards, as well as long hair ( because no barber in their right mind will cut their hair for free, just because some Socialist believes that all hair cuts should be free ) who promise the world to everyone. And of course there are young women and aging female hippies in this clan as well. And they claim that there isn’t any problem that government can’t solve for them. Well, at least until they run out of someone else’s money, or no other country will lend money to them. ( To paraphrase former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher )

These young and older Socialists go around the country bashing what they see as an evil, immoral, and racist economic system ( that sane, intelligent just know as American capitalism ) with their designer clothes, smartphones. And when they’re not bashing American capitalism, they’re rallying against Halloween or Thanksgiving, or protesting against free speech.

They go around the country bashing an economic system, that produced their designer clothes, Che Guevara t-shirts, smartphones and their other favorite devices, that they’re all addicted too. Over caffeinated and addicted to coffee, because they spend too much of their free time at coffee houses.

Bashing an economic system that produces everything that they love in life, because a 70 plus year old man, with a Brooklyn-Jewish accent says that all of these things in life like college and health care can be free. Without explaining one important catch: just as long as there is always someone around who will pay for all of this so-called free stuff. Or there is some third-world authoritarian regime that will lend us the money to pay for the so-called free stuff, that their own citizens won’t pay for, because they believe they shouldn’t have to pay for services that they receive.

See, making fun of Socialists and socialism is very easy: just imagine young people who are overly romantic and idealist, who simply don’t have enough experience in life yet to understand economics, as well as government and politics, because they don’t have that real world experience yet. As well as being the latest victims of the American education system. Or perhaps they were too busy texting their classmates in class and trying to figure out what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast in Malibu and what shoes she was wearing with her new bag, to actually learn about economics, as well as government and politics.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

MGM: The Big Knife 1955- Starring Jack Palance & Ida Lupino

Source:Berigan Traylor- From Robert Aldrich
"In this film version of Clifford Odets' play, Jack Palance plays big-time movie star Charlie Castle, who refuses to sign a binding, $3000 per week contract with mogul Rod Steiger. Steiger tries to blackmail Palance into re-signing by revealing that Palance was behind the wheel during a hit-and-run accident."

From Rotten Tomatoes

"The original trailer in high definition of the big knife directed by Robert Aldrich and starring Jack Palance, Ida Lupino, Wendell Corey, Jean Hagen and Rod Steiger."

From HD Retro Trailers


Source:HD Retro Trailers- Jack Palance and Shelley Winters 
I saw this movie last night ( the TCM version with Ben Mankiewicz ) in preparation for this post ( to give you and idea what we do for our readers at this blog ) and this movie was already one of my favorite movies going in, even though it had three years since I scene it last and it's not just one of my favorite movies now, but I love the movie even more.


Source:Encourage- Jack Palance and Shelley Winters 
Words like great and perfection ( or if you prefer, awesome ) get thrown around a lot and overused a lot, but when I think of great or even perfect movie I think of movies like this. Think about it: great cast when you're talking about Jack Palance one of the best Hollywood toughmen ever, as well as someone with a real dramatic flare and quick wit. Ida Lupino, not just one of the best actresses of the World War II generation regardless of genre, but one of the best ever and a helluva of a director and one of the first successful female directors ever. Hollywood Hall of Famers like Shelley Winters, and Jean Hagen, playing supportive roles. You're talking about an all-star team here.

If Jack and Ida aren't enough for you as far as leads, how about Rod Steiger and Wendell Corry. Steiger to me is sort of the Al Pacino of his generation where he can make small, almost seem unimportant roles and lines look like the best roles that we ever given and lines that were ever written, just because of his delivery. And also like Pacino he can make serious roles and lines seem very funny and have you laughing with him when you're not supposed to, because of his comedic timing, improvisation, and dramatic ability. Wendell Corry as Stanley Hoff's chief counsel,  is simply one of the best character actors ever: like the great role player on a great basketball team, give him an assignment and he knocks it out of the park, regardless of what it is.

Shelley Winters, essentially plays herself in the movie: the big mouth Hollywood actress who knows too much about too many important people, who is frustrated with her studio bosses, who is as adorable and funny as can be, that everyone wants to be around, just as long as they don't say anything that could hurt them. Jean Hagen, the beautiful, sexy, adorable slut of a wife who is unhappily married and wants to be involved with a Hollywood Stud like Charles Castle. ( Played by Jack Palance )

The marriage between Charlie Castle and his wife Marion of course is the main event: they both still are in love with each other, but are both very disappointed with each other. Marion, wants Charlie to leave the corrupt studio that is run by Stanley Hoff ( played by Rod Steiger ) and Charlie does too, but is not ready to make that break. And doesn't like his wife interfering into his career that has made them rich and economically secure.

The Big Knife, is that great and even perfect movie where you have the all-star cast, as well as writing, where the whole story makes sense. And like a great soap opera, it has all the great backstories and subplots behind it with people who have something on someone else and keep each other inline like Stanley keeping Charles inline by not telling the police about a certain accident that he was involved in several years before, just as long as Charles keeps working for him. And other back stories like that. One of the best movies to ever come out of Hollywood, The Big Knife. 

Buffalo Wing Media Bias: Adam Carolla- 'On Hypocrites From The Hollywood Left'

"
Source:Buffalo Wings Media Bias- Actress Jennifer Aniston First Lady Michelle Obama, probably at some posh event in Hollywood. 
"Comedian Adam Carolla exposes Hollywood's hypocrisy, mainly in the area of taxes and money. When it comes to paying your "fair" share, apparently we should do as they say, not as they do.

Here are a few links to articles referenced in the video:"

From Buffalo Wings Media Bias

Source:POLITICO- "The new Hollywood left"
Adam Carolla who is a libertarian comedian, laid out perfectly what the so-called Hollywood-Left in America really is and what they're really about, which is just a bunch of disingenuous Hollywood hypocrites. If they were a softball team, they would be called the Hollywood Hypocrites with a picture of Che Guevara on their t-shirts, arriving to their ballgames in their limos, Rolls Royces, private jets, smoking their Cuban cigars, drinking Champagne instead of Gatorade at their games. Claiming to be down for the cause and against the man. ( Even though a lot of them are the man  or woman )

It's one thing for Joe and Sally Jones or someone else in Smithville, Ohio ( or some place ) who only has a high school diploma, but who is an excellent construction or factory worker who was making before they were laid off or saw their job go to Mexico or some other low-wage country, 50-60 thousand-dollars a year with benefits, to now be talking about the flaws of American capitalism, because they were screwed out of their job and perhaps are now working two part-time jobs or one full-time and a part-time job, or perhaps three part-time jobs just to make a living. That guy or woman has a real case to make, because they just lost their good job in an economic system that does so well for so many people.

But if you're a multi-millionaire by the time you were in your late 20s, mid 20s, hell, you had your own damn corporation by the time you finished high school or were a child actor and now you have the balls to be talking about how much American capitalism sucks and the rich get away with everything, while the little man, woman, and minorities are getting screwed by the system. Well, aren't you part of the so-called problem that you say you want to correct?

These full-time entertainers and at best part-time activists and to be more accurate they're more like actors who play political activists, talk about how much they think American capitalism sucks, while they enjoy every benefit that comes from never having to worry about money ( just as long as they or their accountant doesn't piss their money away )  and enjoy the life ( as they would call it ) in Manhattan or Los Angeles, while talk about the horrors of homelessness, while they own multiple apartments and houses in multiple cities, in places where you have to be rich just to be able to afford the parking there.

If these Hollywood entertainers really care about the social problems of the country, why don't they donate a lot of their money to charities to other groups ( not politicians and candidates ) to fix those problems. Set up foundations to deal with poverty, instead of just looking good on TV in some TV spot talking about them. If they think the rich are really getting away with financial murder in America, then maybe they should release their own taxes and we can see how much they pay in taxes each year, how much they deduct from their taxes, what percentage of their multi-million-dollar annual incomes that they donate to charity. Don't just put your money with your big, fat, mouth is, but put a lot of your money and actually back up what you say. Instead of letting your mouth write checks that your ass can't or won't cash.

New York and Hollywood get stereotyped as left-wing ( if not Far-Left towns ) but they're not. If you had to find the two most pro-capitalist, pro-liberal democracy, pro-American towns and states in America it would probably be New York City and Los Angeles, and New York State and California. Which might sound like someone saying that Seattle, Washington is the capital of sunburns in America. Or no other city gets more blizzards and snow than Miami, Florida.

But think about it: New York City is the capital of Corporate America and therefor American capitalism. Washington, another supposed left-wing or Far-Left city, is the capital of the free world and liberal democracy. Los Angeles, is not just the movie and TV capital of America ( if not the world ) but the entertainment capital of America. ( If not the world ) If these three big American cities are so Far-Left, pro-socialist, and anti-capitalist, then why the hell are they so damn rich and own so many big companies? Why would someone want to do business in a city that hates capitalism and wealth? Of course they wouldn't, because they would either get taxed or regulated out-of-business, or both.

So, can we stop taking the average run of the mill actor or so-called celebrity seriously, or any actor or entertainer at least when they're talking about American capitalism and how unfair they claim that it is and that the rich get all the breaks, while the little man and woman continually get screwed by the system.

Actors and entertainers are just that and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but their profession is a convenient tool to use against them when they claim that the rich has too much. If they really think they're overpaid, then they're more than welcome to donate a lot of their money to their favorite ( if they have one or do any business at all with any charity ) charity and give up all of their extra homes, fly first class instead of having their own plane, eat their meals at delis and dinners, instead of their favorite posh restaurant in Washington, New York, or Los Angeles.

But until then ( and it finally stops raining in Seattle and they run out of coffee on the same day ) we should take these actors and entertainers only as seriously as they deserve to be taken: which is as actors and entertainers who play a part, because they want to be seen as cool with young people who probably do like socialism and perhaps identify as Socialists. And perhaps because their favorite celebrities claim to hate capitalism and the rich as well. 

Monday, August 12, 2019

Charisma on Command: 'How To Have Fun Without Drinking'

Source:Charisma on Command- It's easy: just be yourself. Unless you hate yourself and feel the need to get wasted, just to have a good time. 
"How Do I have Fun Without Drinking?"
https://goo.gl/0uDf6E
It can be tough to have fun when you are learning how to not drink when everyone else is.  People will peer pressure you incessantly, implying that you're no fun or a buzzkill.  That's why it's good to come up with a plan for having fun despite not having anything to drink.

From Charisma on Command

So if you've watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkX4...) and decided to quit drinking, take a look at these tips for having a good time when you're sober and everyone else around you isn't.  Obviously there are a million ways how to have fun without drinking, but the big question is, "How do you do it in an environment where everyone else is?"  Hopefully these musings help :-)"

As a nondrinker ( of alcohol ) I'm not sure how I write this without sounding like a prick here, but I'll give it my best shot, but one of my famous quotes is no promises, so we'll see how it goes.

Before I'll layout how to have a good time without drinking alcohol, I'll first explain why I don't drink alcohol so you know where I'm coming from.

One of the reasons why I don't drink alcohol, is one of the reasons why I'm not religious, because I don't like what it does to people. Which might sound ironic and even contradicting because a lot of the nondrinkers in the world are some of the most religious people because they consider alcohol to be a sin. And here I am as an Agnostic saying that I don't drink because I don't like what it does to people.

They say the most honest people who are drunkest and alcoholics. OK, may I only say that, but it's true because when you drink alcohol, you lose braincells and therefor control of who you are as a person. So what you end up doing when you're drunk is saying and doing things that you normally wouldn't do, including making a complete ass out of yourself or even worse. Abusive parents, spouses, romantic partners, bosses are also alcoholics. Not in every case, but in a lot of cases. And also I don't like the taste of alcohol. So I guess my brain, heart, and my tastebuds thank me every time when I drink a Pepsi, ice tea, or water instead of a beer or another alcoholic drink.

And here is where the sounding like the prick comes in: every time I hear someone say they can't have a good time without drinking, I take as seriously as the person who says they can't get through the day without their Starbucks: ( or whatever their favorite coffee house of choice is ) does life really suck that much for you, or do you really dislike yourself that much that you feel the need to sound and look braindead or like an escaped mental patient in order to have a good time?

And then there are the peer pressures for why people not just drink alcohol, but drink to excess. And I go through this in my own personal life with my drinking friends who wonder why I don't drink and then say: " I know you don't drink and I respect that." Which is their way of saying they don't respect my choice here. Americans especially hipsters and have this dying need to be cool and be seen as cool. Cool people not just drink, but drink to excess, so other people feel they have to do the same thing in order to be cool in America.

How to have a good time in life without drinking alcohol?

Simple questions deserve simple answers: what do you enjoy in life and who do you enjoy hanging out with? Unless the answer to that question is you enjoy getting drunk and hanging out with other drunks, and playing drinking games, and you respect and like yourself as an individual, you shouldn't have any issues enjoying life and enjoying your friends in life, without alcohol. Just do the things that you like doing in life and even do them with your friends, but without alcohol. 

And this also sounds like me being a prick, but it's true so I'm going to say this: but the people who feel the need get plastered ( or shit-faced ) in order to have a good time in life, I suggest that they don't like themselves that much and have real self-confidence and self-respect issues and use alcohol to escape their realities, which just leads to other problems. One of the biggest mistakes that people can make in life and perhaps only intentionally hurting innocent people is only worst, is escaping and ignoring the truth and your own reality in life. 

Evan Carmichael: 'John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success'

Source:Evan Carmichael- From some of President John F. Kennedy's greatest speeches
"John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success:

In this video we're going to learn how to improve our lives by analyzing John F. Kennedy's rules
for success."

From Evan Carmichael

The brilliance of what John F. Kennedy talked about in life either as President of before his presidency, even though a lot of what he talked about had to do with public service and his own government service, can be translated into real life and how Americans live their own lives and should live their own lives. Not so much the decisions that they make in life, but how they go about making their own personal decisions.

Source:The Insider Tales- "INSPIRATIONAL QUOTES BY JOHN F. KENNEDY"
Move forward

People should not just appreciate what we have, but if anything be more focused on what we have, instead of what we don't have yet and perhaps will never achieve, but we should always strive to be the best that we can be. To always strive for perfection knowing that we'll never get there on that road of life, not so we chase our tales and just waste a lot of energy, but to be the best people that we can be. To be the best person, parent, uncle/aunt, sibling, friend, what we do professionally, our hobbies, etc. To be the best people that we can be in life that we possibly can.

Service

To go to President John F. Kennedy's inauguration: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Don't expect people to do for you, what you can't or are either not willing to do for yourself. You'll accomplish a lot more in life if instead of waiting around for things in life and for people to do give you things, because you're simply doing everything for yourself that you can and being the best and most successful person that you can possibly be. In this sense at least, JFK sounds like Ayn Rand here.

High standards

If you want the best out of life, you not only have to work for it, but you have to expect it as well. NFL teams don't win the Super Bowl by believing they're not even good enough to get to the Super Bowl. They know going into the playoffs, or at least late in the regular season that they have a really good team and perhaps even a great one and know they're good enough to win the whole thing. And then set out to do that and execute their goal here. And that's just one example with education being another one, where you can't have great schools, teachers, and students if you don't expect them to be great and hold them accountable when they're not as good as they can be, or even good enough and not even passing the grade.

Freedom for all

When race, ethnicity, complexion, gender, sexuality, religion become more important in America than the person themself, you have a real problem. And no, I'm not talking about not seeing the biological characteristics about people, because we would have to be blind to miss them, but instead see people as people first and more importantly as individuals and not as a member of any group. Judge people individually and you'll have a lot more friends, colleagues, mentors in life, then if you took the attitude you don't like that person's race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, etc.

Resolve differences?

Not sure I like this rule because not all differences can be resolved; hard to imagine how a Communist becomes a Libertarian and vice-versa. Or how a religious fundamentalist who perhaps even has their own definitions of what their religion is supposed to be that's not written in any religious text, gives all that up and decides that they're wrong and religion is actually garbage ( to keep it clean ) and all the sudden becomes an Atheist. Or how an Atheist who is so hardcore and militant with their Atheism to the point that they see anyone who is religious at all as either crazy or is a moron and perhaps even believes that religion should be outlawed, ( like a Communist ) all the sudden decides that they're not just religious, but a religious fundamentalist. Not all differences can be resolved simply because sometimes the two sides are just too far apart.

I guess my positive note here would be to learn to agree to disagree: instead of focusing on what divides you with someone or other people, how about focusing on what you do have in common ( if anything ) instead. And similar to judging people as individuals and as nothing else, you might find that you have some things in common with that person or people and pick up new friends. And if you're so far apart with someone or some people that what they stand for offends you, then maybe you should just move on and find new people to associate with. Which would also be better for your blood pressure with fewer intense arguments. Your heart would thank you for that.

Express your beliefs

You want people to know what you believe and who you are as a person, then speak up! Let people into your own world and bring them in to see what kind of person you are. You can't drive a car until you start it. And you won't make friends and obtain associates in life, if they don't know who you are and what skills you bring to the table and what kind of person you are, what you believe, and why you believe it.

Evan Carmichael's video is called John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success: I gave you six because a lot of his rules actually overlap. Like moving forward, ask not what your country can do for you, and a couple others. And as I said before a lot what Jack Kennedy talked about in life he was doing as a public servant: first as a member of Congress and then as President, but what he talked about as a public servant can be translated into real life as well. Which is one thing that I believe makes him so popular that he was not only so intelligent, but he was readable and easy to listen to. His brain was like a great book of commonsense. 

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

The Beacon: Ben Wilterdink- 'How to Talk to Millennials About Socialism'

Source:The Beacon- Tell Millennials that their laptops and smartphones, could become too damn expensive, if Socialists were ever in charge. 
"By now it is largely considered common knowledge that American Millennials are more enamored with socialism than previous generations. While cutoff points vary, Millennials are most commonly understood as the generation of those born between 1981 and 1996—meaning that, as of 2019, Millennials range in age from as old as 38 to as young as 23. Poll after poll has found that this generation is increasingly skeptical of capitalism and more open to trying socialism. While those headline findings don’t quite present a full and accurate picture of what’s going on, the trend is concerning, and should spur those of us who value a system of government that recognizes individual rights, human dignity, and the power of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange to be ready to defend those principles in the public square."

Read more at The Beacon

Source:The Daily Show With Trevor Noah: 'Why Are Young Americans Embracing Socialism?'- Millennials: "let's replace Uncle Sam, with Uncle Bernie." LOL
"Jaboukie Young-White talks to young people and Senator Bernie Sanders to find out why socialism isn’t the taboo it once was."

To make a more serious point, first: I believe Millennials are now embracing Socialists and socialism, is because they believe that they're being screwed by American capitalism and for good reasons ( and perhaps don't like liberal democracy either ) and know enough about politics and economics to think that socialism, is the natural alternative to capitalism. So instead of so many Americans getting screwed by private enterprises, they expect Uncle Sam ( or Uncle Bernie Sanders ) to come in and provide for them the services and even income that traditionally was provided for by American private enterprise.

Now how to talk about socialism and explain why socialism isn't good for Millennials.

What do stereotypical Millennials ( at least ) value in America?

When you think of Millennials at least socially ( not socialist, necessarily ) you think of their love for new-technology, social media, celebrity culture, what's called reality TV, Hollywood, high-end fashion, etc. Explain to them how all of those things would go away if Uncle Sammy or Uncle Bernie would then become in charge of all of those products.

What drives American capitalism and private enterprise: innovation, talent, intelligence, and competition. You have an idea and product that others want that's affordable and you know how to market it, you'll do very well in America. You put Uncle Sam or Uncle Bernie, or Aunt Liz in charge of those products or at the very least allow them to tax the hell out of those companies and services that Millennials cherish so much, you'll get fewer of those products and they'll become more expensive as well to try to compete with all the new taxes and regulations, assuming they're able to even stay in business after Uncle Bernie and Aunt Liz are done with them.

You think 7-10 bucks for a cup of coffee is too much, put Big Government in charge of it and get use to paying 10-15 bucks for a cup of coffee. Government doesn't need to innovate, it sure as hell doesn't want competition, and doesn't even need intelligence to stay in business. Just taxpayers or foreign countries that are willing to lend them money.  

KrisAnne Hall: 'From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story'

Source:KrissAnne Hall- Don't ask me to explain this photo 
"From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story

What does it take to make a hard core socialist into a true faith Constitutionalist? Listen as this wide awake story is told to not only encourage you, but to show you how to reach others."

From KrisAnne Hall

Source:Namely Liberty- "From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story - NAMELY LIBERTY"
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. This idea brings with it a host of vexing questions of interest not only to legal scholars, but to anyone keen to explore the legal and philosophical foundations of the state.

How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? Does this mean that a government can be ‘self-limiting’? Is this even possible? If not, then is there some way of avoiding this implication? If meaningful limitation is indeed to be possible, perhaps constitutional constraints must somehow be ‘entrenched’, that is, resistant to change or removal by those whose powers are constrained? Perhaps they must not only be entrenched, but enshrined in written rules. If so, how are these rules to be interpreted?

In terms of their original, public meaning or the intentions of their authors, or in terms of the, possibly ever-developing, values and principles they express? How, in the end, one answers these questions depends crucially on how one conceives the nature, identity and authority of constitutions. Must a constitution establish a stable framework for the exercise of public power which is in some way fixed by factors like original public meaning or authorial intentions? Or can it be a living entity which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles? These and other such questions are explored below." 

So to understand KrisAnne Hall's definition of what it means to be a Socialist: I guess she was a Communist and perhaps even a Che-Guevara-Fidel Castro loving Communist, until she woke one day and found Jesus. Perhaps she didn't just have Che t-shirts or a closet full of Che t-shirts, but she personally made Che t-shirts and hats as well. This might be a slight exaggeration, but if you watch her video and just the first 5-10 minutes of it, you could easily get that idea. Unless you're too busy staring at your i-phone or something and completely missed her story.

How about constitutionalism: if you think of the terms constitutional conservative and what's supposed to be the philosophy of constitutional conservatism, you're talking about someone who believes in conserving the Constitution. So in the United States that would be the U.S. Constitution. So Conservatives believe in conserving which is the whole point of being a Conservative and conservatism.

So if you're a Constitutional Conservative, you believe in conserving the Constitution. Not just parts of it that into one partisan or another's current political objectives, but the whole damn document and every amendment in it, whether you agree with every aspect of the Constitution or not. Because you don't want big government coming in and outlawing certain freedoms that we have, just because it decides it doesn't believe individuals should have that freedom, or there's some popular movement to outlaw that freedom or freedoms. Just one example of what it means to be a Constitutional Conservative.

Just to give you a brief, modern history of Constitutional Conservatives and constitutional conservatism: When then Representative Michele Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum ran for President back in 2011-12, ( Michele Bachmann's campaign didn't make it even to 2012. Not even sure if her campaign qualified as short-lived. ) they were both throwing around the term Constitutional Conservative.

But here's the irony and even catch about their Representative Bachmann and Senator Santorum's self-descriptions of their politics: they were both running to amend 2-3 amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In Senator Santorum's case, 4 because he was talking about amending the 1st Amendment to outlaw pornography, which would actually cover the 4th Amendment as well and what people do in the privacy of their own homes and free time. And the 10th and 14th Amendments to outlaw same-sex marriage from the Federal level. And he was also flirting to come out in favor outlawing gambling as well at the Federal level. Which would also come with serious constitutional issues and challenges as well.

So to sum up the Bachmann and Santorum presidential campaigns and to put it simply: neither one of them, at least when they were running for President were Constitutional Conservatives. They were no more Constitutional Conservatives, than Bernie Sanders is a Libertarian and Ronald Reagan was a Communist. And to go back to one of my original points about Constitutional Conservative: you either believe in conserving the Constitution or not. You're all in on the U.S. Constitution, or you're not a Constitutional Conservative. Constitutional Conservatives are not political partisans ( whether they're on the Right or Left ) simply there to conserve the aspects of the Constitution that they like, while working to outlaw and amend aspects of the Constitution that doesn't fit their politics. 

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

The Atlantic: Amanda Mull- 'The Rise of Coffee Shaming': About Damn Time!

Source:The Atlantic- "Buying Coffee Won't Make You Poor." Tell that to people who are drowning in debt.
"Suze Orman wants young people to stop “peeing” away millions of dollars on coffee. Last month, the personal-finance celebrity ignited a controversy on social media when a video she starred in for CNBC targeted a familiar villain: kids these days and their silly $5 lattes. Because brewing coffee at home is less expensive, Orman argued, purchasing it elsewhere is tantamount to flushing money away, which makes it a worthy symbol of Millennials’ squandered resources."

Read Amanda Mull's piece at The Atlantic

Source:Morgan Yates: 'I Tried Every Trendy LA Coffee Shop So You Don't Have To'- Saving the rest of us from having to drink a lot of coffee. LOL
"Today Shelby Church & I are trying LA's most Instagrammed coffee shops! We're stopping by Alfred Coffee, Blue Bottle, Philz, Carrera Cafe + more. We'll be giving you all the info you need to know about the cafes you see on social media & whether or not they're worth the expensive price tags. Watch Shelby's video:" 

I'm a big believer in freedom of choice as a Liberal and we see ourselves as the freedom of choice or pro-choice blog, but just as long as I or no one else has to pay for someone else's choices. If someone else wants to piss their money away on coffee or anything else, that's their choice. Just so long as no innocent person is getting hurt from someone else's personal choices. Personal freedom, is just too damn expensive without personal responsibility.

So if Millennial's or anyone else wants to spend 5-10 bucks on cup of coffee every time they buy coffee, when they could make their own damn coffee at home which is just as good as the coffee as they're buying, that's their damn problem, but not mine or anyone else's.

If they want to take the attitude: "even though I know I'm drowning in student debt and I can't work enough to support myself and perhaps even work jobs that I know way too qualified to work, but I have to take this job, because I can't get the good job that I'm trained for, but being seen in coffee houses and buying and drinking coffee house coffee and being seen walking down the street or sitting outside at a cafe with my coffee staring at my phone is a price that I have to pay to be cool in America, then so be it." ( And perhaps they would use more colorful language than that )

Which gets to my point about coffee houses in America: it's not the coffee, stupid! Or at least not the flavor of the coffee and the quality of the coffee that's the issue here. Coffee house cups and coffee house coffee are like jewelry or t-shirts that have social message on them, or smartphones: they're status symbols that the so in-crowd in America believes that they have to have and be seen with in public in order to be cool and popular in America. It's not the side of the brain that tells us what we like and don't like that's driving so many hipsters ( and wannabe hipsters ) in America to the nearest and coolest coffee house, but the part of the brain that wants us to be cool and popular.

So I'm glad that Suze Orman and others are at least pointing out the financial costs for young people who decide to spend so much of their own money on coffee house coffee in America. Money that could be spent for half as much at home by these hipsters who could simply just make their own coffee that's just as good, for half as much as they spend at their favorite coffee house. And if they want to continue pissing their money away which is money that they probably can't afford to piss away, that's their damn business. Just as long as I and everyone else doesn't have to pay for their personal decisions. 

20th Century Fox: Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid 1969- Paul Newman & Robert Redford Are Butch & Sundance

Source:20th Century Fox- Paul Newman and Robert Redford, are Butch and Sundance 
"Paul Newman and Robert Redford set the standard for the "buddy film" with this box office smash set in the Old West. The Sundance Kid (Redford) is the frontier's fastest gun. His sidekick, Butch Cassidy (Newman), is always dreaming up new ways to get rich fast. If only they could blow open a baggage car without also blowing up the money-filled safe inside... Or remember that Sundance can't swim before they escape a posse by leaping off a cliff into rushing rapids... Times are changing in the west and life is getting tougher.

"So Butch and Sundance pack their guns, don new duds, and, with Sundance's girlfriend (Katharine Ross), head down to Bolivia. Never mind that they don't speak Spanish - they'll manage somehow. A winner of four Academy Awards (including best screenplay and best song), here is a thoroughly enjoyable blend of fact and fancy done with true affection for a bygone era and featuring the two flashiest, friendliest funniest outlaws who ever called out "hands up!"

Source:Michigan Theater- "Michigan Theater: Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid (1969)"
From 20th Century Fox

Paul Newman and Robert Redford are Buch and Sundance. And I could leave at that, at least for anyone who has seen the movie and understands. They made those roles their's and if there is any one movie that I believe an actor would want to be known for, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid would have to be that movie, because Newman and Redford were so perfect with those roles.

You're talking about two American outlaws who rob banks for a living and Paul Newman who runs this gang, makes Butch Cassidy almost seem likable or at the very least entertaining, because of his charm and his depth ability as a comedic actor and American smart-ass, very similar to Cary Grant or Burt Reynolds, Newman could make bad guys seem likable and have you rooting for them.

You're talking about two men who rob banks for a living, who are career criminals, who escape to Bolivia which even in the late 1800s had to be one of the poorest country's not just in South America, but in the world and they're stealing money from people who probably in most cases don't have enough money and yet you're literally rooting for them at the end of the movie to escape from the predicament that they're in and somehow shoot their way out, instead of staying boxed in and either being captured or killed. 

Butch and Sundance is a great movie is you like westerns. It's a great movie if you like action/adventure. It's a great movie if you like action/comedy. Hell, it's a great movie if you like comedy. It's a great movie if you're a guy who loves great female distractions with Katharine Ross playing a big role in the movie. Similar to a great Alfred Hitchcock movie, Butch and Sundance has everything in it. It's one of those movies when you're home one night and you don't know what to have dinner, but you're hungry and you have everything to eat, so you decide to eat everything . Butch and Sundance has everything for everybody.  

Monday, August 5, 2019

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Government By Mad Leftists'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- On last week in politics and government
"Bill recaps the top stories of the week, including racist rhetoric from President Trump and the second round of Democratic debates."

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher

I don't get the title of Bill Maher's piece since is has basically nothing to do with government really other than the current administration. So I guess I'll just focus on the monologue itself.

How about go back to your own country: President Donald Trump, is the son of first generation German immigrants on his father side and his mother is literally from Scotland. Which the last time I checked is still part of the United Kingdom, not the United States. So that alone should get you thinking about why would a 1st generation American be telling other Americans where 3-4 of them are born in America, to go back home. Hey Don, why don't you back home to Scotland or Germany, assuming those countries will take you back, or haven't deported you! Which is my answer to go back home.

The budget deal: this was covered here by this blog the last two weeks, but how about the death of fiscal conservatism, which sounds like a title of the book. Maybe the GOP should stand for Grand Old People, who borrow and spend way too much of other people's money. Because now the Republican Party is short of constitutional conservatives, fiscal conservatives and Christian-Conservatives, who've actually even read The Ten Commandments, let alone actually understand them.

As far as the debates from last week: I have a pice of advice for Democrats who are looking to break through, but haven't already: if you don't have a positive message that connects with Democratic voters, don't try to make a name for yourself by attacking the other Democrats. Don't be the blocker in the auto race who knows he can't win the race, but happens to be on the same team with the guy who can win the race and what you do instead is try to block the competition from winning.

The more Democrats attack other Democrats in the primary election, the easier the eventual nominee will be to beat by the Republican National Committee and the Trump Campaign. They'll say: "see, his Democratic opponents had real issues with him as a candidate." Or it could be a hers, who knows. So if you're not getting through by now because Democrats don't know you or like you, ( or both ) find a positive message that actually connects, or do the party and country a favor and get the hell out. Leaving Democrats with only 10-12 choices for President, instead of 20.

Hire the best people: almost every time I hear Donald Trump speak about anything, the more convinced I am that English is not his first language. ( Perhaps its German or Gaelic ) He seems to have his own personal definition every time he speaks. According to The Donald, hiring the best people which was just one of his many promises as President, means hiring the people who are most loyal to him, who do the best on TV, know the least, have the fewest qualifications, don't even have the balls to question power, let alone actually do that. His latest pick for Director of National Intelligence, which is not exactly the chief janitor position at the CIA, is the perfect example of that. 

Foreign Affairs: Sebastian Mallaby- 'How Should a Liberal Be?'

Source:K-Top- Thomas Jefferson; one of the Founding Fathers, as well as Founding Liberals, and father's of American liberalism.
"In James Grant, it sometimes seems, the nineteenth century has been resuscitated. Towering, gaunt, bow-tied, and pinstriped, he writes with a sly wit that recalls the novels of William Thackeray. His signal achievement is a fortnightly cult publication bearing the antique title Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. He is a nostalgic believer in the nineteenth-century gold standard. He eyes modern banking innovations with stern, starch-collared suspicion, as though peering at them through a monocle. Even traditional financial instruments elicit a wry scorn. “To suppose that the value of a common stock is determined purely by a corporation’s earnings,” Grant once wrote, “is to forget that people have burned witches, gone to war on a whim, risen to the defense of Joseph Stalin and believed Orson Welles when he told them over the radio that the Martians had landed.”

Now, Grant has written a delightful biography of Walter Bagehot, the great nineteenth-century Englishman in whom Grant perhaps recognizes a grander version of himself: the would-be Victorian sage is paying tribute to the authentic one. From 1861 until his death in 1877, Bagehot served as the third and most famous editor of The Economist. He was a confidant of William Gladstone, the dominant liberal politician of the era, and his words exercised such sway over successive governments that he was regarded as an honorary cabinet minister. After Bagehot’s death, a contemporary remarked that he might have been the most fascinating conversationalist in London.

Like Grant, Bagehot was a vivid wordsmith and a cult figure. Unlike Grant, Bagehot was generally a modernizer, a believer in progress, and therefore an opponent of the gold standard. (Bagehot’s views on certain matters, such as gender and race, were far from enlightened.) In his slim 1873 volume, Lombard Street, Bagehot explained how central banks should quell financial panics by printing currency and lending it liberally—“to merchants, to minor bankers, to ‘this man and that man,’ whenever the security is good.” To Grant’s evident dismay, this formulation."

From Foreign Affairs

Source:CBS News: 'President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address'- Our last Classical Liberal if not Liberal President

"On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history."

From Encyclopedia

"Liberal democracy is generally understood to be a system of government in which people consent to their rulers, and rulers, in turn, are constitutionally constrained to respect individual rights. However, widely divergent views exist regarding the meaning of consent and individual rights, of the particular forms of government that are best suited to the preservation of popular rule and the protection of rights, and of the types and effectiveness of constitutional constraints within particular forms of government. Nonetheless, liberal democracy is common throughout most of the developed world."

Before I get into how should a Liberal be, perhaps I should get into what Liberals aren't.

If you look at what stereotypical Liberals are, they represent almost nothing as far as what Liberals actually are and if anything if you look at what stereotypical Liberals are ( as some people call Modern Liberals ) and what real Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) are supposed to be, they look almost as different as Communists and Ayn Randian Objectivist-Libertarians: with the so-called Liberals believing that government should try to do practically everything for everybody and that free choice and private ownership should be as limited as possible, if permitted at all. With Randian-Libertarians thinking that government should do practically nothing for people, if anything at all.

If you look at the so-called Liberals going back to the late 1960s and all through the 1970s, you would think that Liberals are nothing but rebellious leftist-hipsters who believe everything that America represents is immoral and bigoted and that they want to tear down the system ( or as they would say, the man ) and replace it with a socialist state.

Radical leftist groups from the late 1960s and early 1970s like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground and other militant socialist groups, didn't even call themselves Liberals. It was the so-called mainstream media that did that. They were people who literally believed that liberal democracy is bad and communism is good. And today you see groups like that on the Far-Left in America that are supposed to be the Liberals of today, but who aren't militant: groups like The Left Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, ( who call themselves Democratic Socialists, not Liberals ) the Occupy Wall Street movement from early in this decade just after the Great Recession, and other left-wing, socially and politically active political organizations in America.

That if you're a Liberal, you're supposed to be a rebellious hippie ( either from the 1960s or today ) who believes that everything that America stands for and even our form of government is immoral and that it's your job to tear that down ( either through democratic means or otherwise ) and replace it with some type of Scandinavian socialist state. You're supposed to believe that the socialist dictators of the world like in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and other places are actually decent moral people and if there's anything wrong with them at all, it's America's fault and that we forced them on those countries. And that it's America who are the real authoritarians and terrorists in the world.

The so-called Modern Liberal is supposed to believe that capitalism is racist and bigoted, that personal freedom is dangerous, people are stupid and therefor you need big government to babysit people and manage their lives for them. That free speech is supposedly bigoted and therefore has to be regulated so that no one is offended. Well, anyone who isn't a member of some minority group ( except for Jews ) in the country. But free speech for anyone who has something to say about any member of a majority group. And free speech for anyone who has something negative to say about anyone on the Right ( including the Center-Left, who look Right compared with the Far-Left ) or any member of a majority group.

So-called Liberals are supposed to believe that anyone who sets out to get a good education and become financially independent in life and them accomplishes those objectives, even if they donate part of their wealth to charity, is somehow immoral and bigoted. The so-called Liberals from back in the day and today are people who not just question capitalism and private ownership, but are looking for alternatives to replace those actual liberal values. We're seeing that with young Democratic voters in the Democratic presidential race right now.

So I just laid out what Liberals aren't, even if the so-called mainstream media is too clueless or brainless to get that. And I'll tell you what it means to be a Liberal, at least to me.

If you look at the word liberal and liberty, they're very similar because liberal comes from liberty. ( Not big government, socialist, communist, collectivist, welfare state ) If you look at the words liberation, liberalize, liberalized, they're all not just very similar to liberal because they're the same things.

When countries liberalize their economies, their societies, their government's, they're opening them up and expanding individual freedom. Not expanding the government and taking away free choice and free ownership. We're seeing that in Cuba today with is more liberal today than they were even 15 years ago with Cubans now being able to own and start their own businesses and own their homes. When they were a pure communist state under Fidel Castro, they were less liberal than they are today.

To put it simply: a Liberal is someone who believes in liberty, not big government. Liberals, believe in liberal democracy and the liberal values that it represents: like individual rights like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, limited government, decentralization of power, ( both governmental and private ) checks and balances, free, fair, and open elections, quality of opportunity, equal rights, equal justice, pluralism, diversity, a race, ethnic, gender, and religious-blind society where individuals are judged exactly as that, not as members of any group. Liberals are not Anarchists or Communists: we want government to defend all of our rights for every one us, not to do nothing, or try to run our lives for us. These are the liberal values of liberalism, not collectivism. 

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Politics and Prose: Ece Temelkuran- 'How to Lose a Country'

Source:Politics and Prose- Turkish author Ecel Temelkuran: at Politics and Prose in Washington
"Twice rated one of the ten most influential people in social media, Temelkuran is both an award-winning novelist and Turkey’s most-read political columnist. In her new book she looks at recent political events from around the world— Britain’s Brexit movement, the election of Trump, Erdoğan’s rigged elections in Turkey—identifying the pattern of an insidious wave of populism. Arguing that people need to stop saying “it can’t happen here” and face the reality that it is happening everywhere, Temelkuran points out the warning signs we can’t afford to ignore and proposes global answers to what has become a global problem.

Ece Temelkuran is an award-winning Turkish novelist and political commentator, whose journalism has appeared in the Guardian, New York Times, New Statesman, Frankfurter Allgemeine and Der Spiegel. She won the Edinburgh International Book Festival First Book award for her novel Women Who Blow on Knots, and the Ambassador of New Europe Award. She has been twice recognised as Turkey's most-read political columnist, and twice rated as one of the ten most influential people in social media (with three million twitter followers).

Twice rated one of the ten most influential people in social media, Temelkuran is both an award-winning novelist and Turkey’s most-read political columnist. In her new book she looks at recent political events from around the world— Britain’s Brexit movement, the election of Trump, Erdoğan’s rigged elections in Turkey—identifying the pattern of an insidious wave of populism. Arguing that people need to stop saying “it can’t happen here” and face the reality that it is happening everywhere, Temelkuran points out the warning signs we can’t afford to ignore and proposes global answers to what has become a global problem."

Source:Near St- From Ecel Temelkuran 
Watch the video here Politics and Prose

I think I agree with Ecel Temelkuran on right-wing authoritarianism, what she calls right-wing populism, what I call authoritarian nationalism where a right-wing Nationalist like President Recep Tayyip Erdogan comes to power in Turkey and suddenly decides that he's God and therefor infallible and shouldn't have anything that looks like checks and balances and opposition. And that anyone who even tries to question him and hold him accountable, is unpatriotic and a traitor and no longer even deserves to live, let alone deserving of basic human rights like civil liberties. This happens a lot to politicians from opposition parties in Russia, as well as Russian journalists in Russia who have the gaul to question the Putin Administration and President Vladimir Putin.

But I guess I'm more in line with Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef who takes a comedic approach to how he handles authoritarians and just makes fun of them and attacks their narcissism. Authoritarianism whether it's right-wing like in Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or left-wing authoritarianism like in Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, is a serious problem that comes with horrible consequences for the people who have to live under these authoritarian regimes.

But authoritarianism like with life in general if you can't make fun of it and just relax for a moment about it, this will drive you crazy or at least send you into a depression. If you can't make fun of people who are so narcissistic and paranoid that they literally see themselves as a God that everyone that they come across must bow down to them or face death or at least horrible torture if they don't bow down to them, then who the hell can you make fun of? If comedians and other people can't make fun of authoritarians, then they might as well got out of business. And next we wouldn't be allowed to make fun of fat people or stupid people.

Authoritarians are generally if not always bad people who are the most corrupt and even evil criminals that you'll ever come across. From evil dictators to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 40s, as well as Joe Stalin, to Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin today. These men are all responsible for countless murders and acts of torture against innocent people. And certainly deserve to not just be taken seriously, but to be held accountable. But if you can't make fun of of someone with that type of narcissistic, paranoid, evil personality, men who literally see themselves as God's, ( which is how far out of space their brains operate in ) you might as well start taking UFO and Elvis sightings seriously, because you can't see the humor in anything. 

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Dan Mitchell: ‘Reckless and Irresponsible- President Trump: Is Making Big Government Even Bigger’: The Death of Fiscal Conservatism?

Source:CNN- President Barack Obama vs. President Donald Trump
Source:The New Democrat

“A few months later, I concluded that the answer was no. Trump – like Bush and Nixon – was a big-government Republican.

I wish that I was wrong.

But if you look at the budget deal he approved last year, there’s no alternative explanation. Especially since there was an approach that would have guaranteed a victory for taxpayers.

Now it appears that he is on the verge of meekly surrendering to another big expansion of the federal budget.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell's piece


Source:Dan Mitchell: 'Expressing Disdain for Trump's Big-Spending Budget Deal'- Dan Mitchell, talking to Neil Cavuto 
When you read this piece about the Republican Party and how they’ve given up on fiscal conservatism and have said goodbye to it, ( at least until the next Democratic President )  hope you don’t get the impression that I’m leaving the Democratic Party off the hook here for the hook here for the budget deficit that’s now over 1 trillion-dollars again and the 21 or so trillion-dollar national debt, because I’m not. Democrats have never claimed the mantle of fiscal conservatism and fiscal conservatives. And other than the 1990s with New Democrat and Progressive President Bill Clinton, they never even claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility either. President Jimmy Carter, tried in the late 1970s, but failed to do that.

Pre not just Donald Trump, but George W. Bush as well if there was ever any benefit to having Republicans in government and leading government, it was that they were going to keep your taxes and regulations down, as well as spending. That they saw government’s job was to protect people from predators, foreign and domestic. And that they wouldn’t run high deficits and debt, because they believed in limited government and expected government ( especially the Federal Government ) to do a handful of things and do them well. That to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: it’s the job of government to keep us safe, not to run our lives for us. But even with Ronald Reagan as President, that message and vision for what it means to be a Republican has changed dramatically.

In 1980 to be a Republican it meant someone who believed in the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, strong national defense, fiscal conservatism, as well as economic freedom, and even personal freedom. That even if Republicans didn’t approve of someone else’s lifestyle choices, they didn’t believe that it was the job of big government to tell people that they can’t live that way, short of not hurting other people with their own lives.

That being a Conservative meant being someone who believed in conserving these American values. Not conserving the Republican Party at any cost, even if that it meant abandoning conservative values like: the U.S. Constitution, limited government, rule of law, tradition, etc.

It’s not just today with this Republican cult like figure named Donald Trump where we’ve seen the Republican Party pretty much ( with few exceptions ) surrender their own traditional Republican values of what it means to be both a Republican and a Conservative.

Ronald Reagan, whatever you think about his politics was never a fiscal conservative, at least not as President. George H.W. Bush was, but he only served one term before losing reelection. George W. Bush, I mean he walks into the White House door with 120 billon-dollar surplus and leaves the White House with a trillion-dollar deficit, so do the math. And of course there’s President Donald Trump, who has never even advertised himself as a Conservative, let alone a fiscal conservative and by the time his first ( and if there’s a God, only one term ) as President, will double President Obama’s 600 billion-dollar deficit.

Today according not to just President Donald Trump, but the Republican Leadership being a Republican and a Conservative seems to mean nothing more than supporting President Trump at all costs: including surrendering what I guess now today in the Republican Party would be little things like morality, character, honesty, decency, truth-telling, the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, and even fiscal responsibility, just as long as you support President Trump. And that the only time to even try to sound like a fiscal conservative, is when there is a Democratic President.

Liberty Pen: Brendan O'Neill- 'Political Correct Bigotry'

Source:Liberty Pen- Is this kid saying no to political correctness, or is how pointing it out?
"British columnist Brendan O’Neil explains the intended and unintended consequences of the sugar-coated tyranny we call political correctness.

See the video at Liberty Pen

Source:Liberty Pen- Brendan O'Neill on Twitter 
Brendan O'Neill is right in the sense that racial and a certain form of racism has come back into style, but both on the Right and Left. We have a President of the United States who is now openly racist towards minorities that criticize him, with his political party either backing up everything that he says, or denying that his racism is racism. And then you have people on the Left of all races and ethnicities who openly bash Caucasians and Caucasian men, who if those attacks were against any minority group, the people saying those things would automatically be labeled as racists or bigots.

Back in the 1990s which now seems like over 20 years ago, ( ha, ha ) we as a country and society where race and ethnicity actually started not mattering, where people of all races were not being judged by their race and ethnicity, where Americans even minorities didn't feel the need to identity themselves by the things that's most physically most obvious about them other than their gender, which is their race and ethnicity.

In the 1990s we had our affirmative action debates and other debates about poverty and the role of government, but we weren't debating who were the real Americans with people on the Right ( especially the Far-Right ) claiming that European-Americans were the only real Americans. And everyone else including Europeans who weren't Protestant and Northern European, like Italians and Jews, and even Irish-Catholics, weren't real Americans. With only Anglo-Saxon Protestants being the real Americans.

With the Far-Left saying that European-Americans are essentially all bigots and bad people, who don't understand what it's like to be African, Latino, Asian, or Middle Eastern in America. And the only good Europeans in America were on the Left and from Northeaster and West Coast background as far as how they grew up and went to those schools, where they learned how to become good people.

I grew up in Bethesda, Maryland in the 1980s and 90s and went to one of the most diverse high schools that you could ever imagine where there certainly wasn't a majority ethnicity in that school and perhaps not even a majority race. Where we were all considered to be people and individuals, as well as students, but not as members of this race or this ethnicity. Bethesda Chevy Chase High School just outside of Washington, in a lot of ways represents Dr. Martin L. King's dream where all of his children would've been judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

And we're now at a point in the country thanks to the Far-Right and Far-Left where race and ethnicity now matters. Where it can be a real problem for you as a minority to be a Republican. Both from the Far-Right of the party, but from partisans from your own community who see you as a sellout and believe that you're now one of them. ( Meaning part of enemy )

And if you're a Democrat who is of European background, you'll have Far-Leftists who think your race and ethnicity not only matters, but is a problem for them. Who don't want to see you win this election or be appointed to that office, simply because those positions already have a lot of people from your race serving in those positions. We're seeing that in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, where a big problem that the Far-Left of the party has with Vice President Joe Biden, is that he's Caucasian and male, as well as 76 years old.

I'm from the John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin King school of America who believes not just in liberal democracy, but pluralism as well. That believes that we don't judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Anyone can say that they're colorblind, or race blind, ethnic blind, or gender blind. Which is a silly thing to say, because none of us are and that's not the point or question anyway. The point or question is do we judge people by their race, ethnicity, or gender, or do we judge them by the content of their character and as individuals. If you believe in the great melting pot known as America, then you're a pluralist who sees people as individuals and judges them accordingly. Not by the color of their skin and what racial or ethnic group that they're a member of.