John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

New York Magazine: Opinion- Ed Kilgore: 'George McGovern Didn’t Lose in 1972 by Going Too Far Left. Neither Will 2020 Democrats'

Source:New York Magazine- George McGovern For President in 1972, was President Richard Nixon's early Christmas gift. And the Democratic Party's vacation in Hell.
"One of the most persistent arguments surrounding the 2020 presidential contest is that Democrats are heading “off the deep end” on a left-wing ideological bender that will mean disaster in the general election. The warning is very often associated with the specter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, who lost 49 states four years after Hubert Humphrey lost by an eyelash and four years before Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The obsession with the idea that 1972 may repeat itself is a bipartisan phenomenon. Some McGovern Redux takes are from conservatives who are simply promoting the perennial claim that Democrats have become an anti-American cabal of baby-killing hippie socialists with a fresh urgency given the current extremism of the GOP. And some of these takes are (and have been for many years) from self-styled moderate Democrats grinding axes against self-consciously progressive aspirants to the presidential nomination."

Read more at New York Magazine

George McGovern's 1972 political platform from Wikipedia

"In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform that advocated withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war[15] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country,[16] an anti-war platform that was anticipated by McGovern's sponsorship of the 1970 McGovern-Hatfield amendment that sought to end U.S. participation in the war by Congressional action. However, during a meeting with Democratic Governors conference, Nevada Governor Mike O'Callaghan asked McGovern what he would do if the North Vietnamese refused to release American POW's after a withdrawal. McGovern responded, "Under such circumstances, we'd have to take action," although he did not say what action.[17]

"McGovern's platform also included an across-the-board, 37% reduction in defense spending over three years;[18] and a "demogrant" program that would replace the personal income tax exemption with a $1,000 tax credit as a minimum-income floor for every citizen in America,[19] to replace the welfare bureaucracy and complicated maze of existing public-assistance programs. Its concept was similar to the negative income tax long advocated by economist Milton Friedman, and by the Nixon administration in the form of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan, which called for a minimum family grant of $1,600 per year, later raised to $2,400. The personal income tax exemption later became $1,000 under President Reagan. (As Senator, McGovern had previously sponsored a bill, submitted by the National Welfare Rights Organization, for $6,500 guaranteed minimum income per year to families, based on need.)[20] In addition, McGovern supported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."

Source:The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann- 'Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern - Here’s Proof'- Maybe Thom Hartmann, really is Commie, since he works for President Vladimir Putin. LOL
From Thom Hartmann

"A lot of Hillary's supporters say they like Bernie Sanders - but that they're afraid that Sanders might lose the general in a landslide. But it's not 1972 - and Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern."

I agree with Ed Kilgore on one thing: Senator George McGovern wasn't as Far-Left as people believed. Which is like saying that Pat Buchanan, isn't as Far-Right as people might think. Or it's not as hot in Arizona in the summer as some people might think. It's only 120 degrees in the summer, instead 130 and besides: it's a dry heat and there's no humidity. That's still very hot compared with most of the rest of the country that's dealing with temperatures in the 80s and 90s, 70s in the Northwest and even 60s because of all their damn rain. And Pat Buchanan is still pretty Far-Right, especially since now he's arguing that maybe President Vladimir Putin is right about liberal democracy dying.

Senator George McGovern before being elected to Congress, served as a fighter pilot during World War II. And then ran the food program that served hungry people in the Kennedy Administration. Growing up in South Dakota he was devoutly religious and remained that way his whole life. He wasn't some hippie pacifist Socialist that believed that America was the real evil empire and that Fidel Castro and Russia were the good guys. He knew that they were bad people that had to be dealt with.

But when you give speeches on the Senate floor arguing that American soldiers were the real war criminals during the Vietnam War and you have a new social program and tax increase to solve all of Americans problems for them and you continually bash American businesses that hire all of these American voters that depend on these companies for their jobs and lifestyles, that puts you on the Far-Left in America.

Especially in 1972 with the emergence of the New-Left in America ( Socialists and Communists, not Liberals ) in the late 1960s and early 70s. And then you have these group of middle-American voters ( that the Far-Left likes to just put down as blue-collar, small town white people ) who represent a large chunk of the American electorate, who are not wealthy, who work hard to make a good living in America and if anything think that they're already overtaxed and that government is already trying to do too much for them, who are people who are just looking for an opportunity to make more money and be successful, who are proud of the American military and think that America is a great country, you're going to look extreme to these voters. Whether you're George McGovern in 1972, or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in 2019-20.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Far-Leftists ( or Democratic Socialists ) and their supporters will argue that America has changed and that minorities are now a bigger part of the American electorate and you now even have young Caucasian-American voters who aren't afraid of socialism and Socialists and even like Socialists and socialism, but here's the problem with that argument: minorities whether they're African-American, Latino, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Jewish., whatever racial or ethnic background, they're not monolithic as voters.

None of these racial and ethnic groups are monolithic as voters. Just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're left-wing and all Caucasians are right-wing. Not even all middle age and older Caucasian voters are on the Right. Caucasian voters regardless of ethnicity aren't monolithic as voters either. And the other problem that left-wing in the Democratic Party has is that the group of voters that they're targeting are the least reliable as far as people who go to the polls and who vote. Young voters of all ethnic racial backgrounds.

For a Democrat to win the presidency in 2020, they still have to be able to win big states in the Midwest and probably even Florida in the South, if they lose Ohio again. You can't run a Democratic presidential campaign in 2020 thinking you only need women regardless of race, young voters regardless of race, minorities. And you can't win the minority vote and get new minority voters to the polls, by thinking they're automatically going to show up and vote for you, because of President Donald Trump. You have to reach out to them and get them to the polls yourself and appeal to them for their votes. 

Monday, August 19, 2019

The Film Archives: Douglas Charles; J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays

Source:The Film Archives- No, J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays, didn't come from The Onion.
J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI, and the “Sex Deviates” Program – NOTCHES"

From The Film Archives

Source:Amazon- J. Edgar Hoover: A Queen's War on Queens, would also be a good title for this book. 
Not sure if a satirical approach, or a more serious approach about FBI Director Edgar Hoover's apparent warrant war on homosexuality is the right approach here. Because he was a total hypocrite when it came to homosexuality being not just a closeted gay man himself as someone who had a long-term affair with one of his assistants, but apparently he was a closeted queen ( feminine gay man ) as well. You could really rip Hoover on this, or take a more serious approach.

Edgar Hoover's public anti-homosexuality, reminds me of the so-called Christian-Conservative politician or pastor who secretly has affairs with either his male staffers, or juvenile males. Representative Mark Foley from back in the mid-2000s who was an anti-gay in public, but in his private life had an affair with one of his Congressional staffers. The whole Catholic Church scandal from the early 2000s where you had Priests who were molesting children, including boys, would be another example. Catholics, or at least so-called Conservative-Catholics tend to view homosexuality as a sin.

I mean you really could have fun with Edgar Hoover on this, because in public he was claiming to be a champion of traditional American values, despite all his attacks on the U.S. Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and perhaps other amendments with all the unwarranted wiretaps and unwarranted private information that he collected on private American citizens and not just civil rights leader Dr. Martin L. King. But other than all of these constitutional violations that he committed as a Federal Government official, I guess he would be considered to be a champion of American traditional values, the U.S. Constitution, and individual freedom.

Well, according to the Far-Right Hoover believed in these so-called American values. But we also happen to be talking about a group of American that also believes in UFO's and other conspiracy theories. So take their word for only what it's worth. Even though in private life, Hoover didn't believe in any of these so-called traditional American values, especially these so-called Christian family values ( being a gay man ) and he didn't believe in the U.S. Constitution or individual freedom. He just wanted the Far-Right to believe he believed in those things.

So in public life FBI Director Edgar Hoover ( did anyone have the balls to call Edgar Hoover, Ed? ) was a champion of traditional American values and morality. But in private life, Hoover was the Queen of Queens, except he lived in Washington. And to be frank: spoke with such a high voice that you might have thought he was just kicked in the balls by a horse and somehow lived to tell and talk about it.

So yeah, Edgar Hoover was dictatorial, authoritarian leader of the largest and most powerful law enforcement agency not just in America, but in the world. And of course deserves great criticism to be be put down for that and should've been put in jail for all of his crimes against Americans. But if you can't see the humor in this story and in his life, I suggest that you go look for a sense of humor and then claim it as your own and use it. 

ATHENAISM: 'Why Is John F. Kennedy so Popular?'

Source:ATHENAISM- Depends on who you ask for JFK's popularity
"John F. Kennedy is one of the most popular US presidents. Was he as good as people remember him being? What exactly is it that makes him so popular?"


Source:Caleb and Linda Pirtle- John F. Kennedy: I believe in 1960, when he was running for President. But I don't know for sure.
Why is John F. Kennedy so popular? It depends on who you ask and who you're talking about.

As a Classical Liberal ( a real Liberal ) myself I like JFK and consider him to be one of my political heroes, because of his politics and policies. You're talking about a Democrat who was not just an anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian, and an anti-collectivist all together. Who actually believed in economic opportunity, individual freedom, personal responsibility, like all real Liberals that liberty is not just worth defending, but is something that has to be defended. He believed in equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, things that Democrats apparently don't believe in today ( for the most part ) with few exceptions. President Barack Obama, being one of the last of those Democrats. Despite his right-wing Tea Party stereotypes that President Obama was actually a Socialist. 

But as I mentioned last week on this blog about JFK's rules for success, he wasn't just a brilliant man, but a man ( at least as far as how he spoke ) was full of such brilliant commonsense. Brilliant commonsense probably sounds like a great economy car: how great can an economy car be, otherwise it wouldn't be an economy car, but he's so quotable because he said things that sound brilliant at first, but then when you think about it they're really just commonsense that too many people had simply forgot about. His peace speech where he's talking about the shared human values between America and Russia and how it was in both superpowers best interests to cooperate for the good of the planet and our people's. He's someone that if you gave speeches for a living and tried to help people improve their own lives with your advice, would want to use JFK by quoting him.

So that's why I like him so much, but JFK's popularity of course is bipartisan and perhaps even nonpartisan, otherwise he wouldn't have an 83% approval rating or whatever the current figure is. Why do Conservatives like him? Why do Socialists ( who call themselves Progressives or Liberals ) like him? Why do even Libertarians like him? And finally, but certainly least: why is Hollywood if not in love with the man ( women and men ) why do they love him?

Conservatives like John F. Kennedy, because he was an anti-Communist, who really didn't like socialism in any form. He believed in economic freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which is why he pushed for what was certainly back in 1962 a very large across the board tax cut. He believed in a strong defense and that liberty was worth defending.

JFK, believed in things that today would look very conservative, especially with socialism being so popular at least with young Democrats today, but are actually very liberal ( both in a classic and real sense ) but look conservative, again compared with the modern Democratic Party. Back then Liberals were supposed to believe in these things and not sound and believe like Socialists. And Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) still believe in these things today.

Why do let's just call them what they are Socialists, who now see Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, Che Guevara, and other leftists as their heroes: why do they admire JFK?

President John Kennedy, wanted to expand the safety net in America and create new social insurance programs for people who struggle to survive economically in America. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Federal Aide for Education, because he was a Progressive ( not Socialist ) who believed that government, including the Federal Government could be used to improve the lives of struggling Americans. But unlike let's say Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders he didn't think these programs should be universal and that the Federal Government should replace private employers as the source for how Americans get their what most of us call employee benefits: health insurance, paid leave, childcare, life insurance, pension, education, etc. And JFK also talked about the need for peace a lot.

Libertarians, similar to Conservatives like JFK for his beliefs in lower taxation and individual freedom all together. Jack Kennedy, didn't see the role of government especially the Federal Government to manage and run the lives of free Americans.

And finally, but certainly least why is Hollywood still in love with John F. Kennedy? If you're familiar with Hollywood, you know that it's not just the entertainment capital of America ( if not world ) but they're also the capital of pop culture and faddism. If it's considered cool, it's probably because some Hollywood celebrity either started it or got behind it. And because of their faddism and addiction to popularity and hipsterism, Hollywood always feels the need to be popular and cool. They don't love the man because of his policies for the most part, even though they will talk about his policy accomplishments.

Hollywood loves JFK because he was cool and see him as an honorary member of their Hollywood club. He had friends in Hollywood and they even planned his 45th birthday party in 1962. We're a big part of the production of his 1961 inauguration. Hollywood has this dying need to be seen with the in-crowd and be associated with anything that's cool in America. If fascism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism ever became popular in America, at least with young people, Hollywood would be promoting those philosophies with their movies and other productions.  Which is also why Socialists love JFK, because Socialists tend to be hipsters and follow the cool people as well. Which is why Hollywood claims to love Socialists and socialism as well, because socialism is popular with young people.

To have an 83% approval rating, you either have to be God in a very religious country where even young adults are very religious, or you have to be leading a country that's just been under attack and you're the one who successfully led the country through that crisis and came out stronger, like President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor in 1941, or you have to be a politician who is so popular, because you're able to connect with so many people on so many different levels. Which is why John F. Kennedy is still so popular in America. 

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?"
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 ( 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.

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.


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.